bX  .tibhb  V.2 

Summers,  Thomas  0.  1812- 
1882. 

Systematic  theology 


4 


SYSTEMATIC  TH 


A  COMPLETE  BODY  OF 

Wesleyan  Arminian  Divinity 

CONSISTING  OF 


Lectures  on  the  Twenty-live  Articles  of  Religion 


BY  THE  LATE 

REV.  THOS.  O.  SUMMERS,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

PKOFESSOR  OF  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY  IN  VANDLKBILT  L'XIVERSITY. 

The  Whole  Arranged  and  Revised,  With 
Introduction,  Copious  Notes,  Explanatory  and  Supplemental, 
And  a  Theological  Glossary, 

BY  THE 

REV.  JNO.  J.  TIGERT,  M.A.,  S.T.B., 

PROFESSOR  IX  VANDERBILT  UNIVERSITY. 


IX  TWO  VOLUMES. 
VOL.  II. 


NASHVILLE,  TENN.: 
Publishing  House  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

J.  D.  BARBEE,  AGENT. 
1888. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Conjrress,  in  the  year  1888, 
By  tiik  JiooK  Agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Chl'kch,  South, 
in  the  Ollice  of  the  Eibi  arian  of  Congress,  at  AVashington. 


Contents  of  Volume  11. 


BOOK  VI- 
Anthropology  :  the  Doctrine  of  Man. 

PART  I. 

Of  Original  or  Birth  Sin  (Art.  VII.). 
CHAPTER  I. 

PELAGIANISM,  AUGUSTINIANISM,  ARMINIANISM. 

I.  Rise  and  Development  of  Pelagianism.  o 

PAOB 

§  1.  Errors  Attributed  to  Pelagius   19 

§2.  Pelagianism  before  Pelagius   21 

§3.  More  Orthodox  Patristic  Views   23 

^  4.  Infant  Baptism   24 

II.  Rise  and  Development  of  Augustinianism. 

?  1.  The  Doctrine  of  Auoustin   25 

^2.  The  Doctrine  among  the  Scholastics   2(5 

g  3.  The  Council  of  Trent   27 

The  Lutheran  View   27 

§  5.  John  Calvin   28 

§6.  Keaction  from  Calvinism   31 

III.  Via  Media  of  Arminianism. 

§  1.  Statement  of  the  Arminian  View    31  " 

§  2.  Points  of  Difference   33 

§3.  Methodism  Kejects  the  Semi-pelagianism  of  Limborch   34  - 

§  4.  Methodist  Doctrine  of  Universal  Vicarious  Satisfaction  for 

Original  Sin   35 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  ARMINIAN  DOCTRINE:  DEFENSE  AND  PROOF. 

§  1.  The  Phrase  "Original  Sin"  Explained  and  Defended   45 

§  2.  Imputation  Mediate,  Not  Immediate   4Q  y 

?  3.  Negative  and  Positive  Definition  of  Original  Sin   46  ^ 

I  4.  Original  Righteousness   47 

§5.  The  Image  of  God   49 

(3) 


4 


Contents. 


PAGE 

^  6.  The  Nature  of  Virtue  and  Sin   53 

^7.  No  Semi-pelagianism  in  the  Article   54 

§  8.  Proofs  of  the  Doctrine  from  Personal  Experience   55 

§  9.  Proofs  from  Observation   56 

§  10.  Scriptural  Proofs   08 

§11.  Conclusion   59 

PART  II. 

Of  Free-will  (Art.  VIII.). 
CHAPTER  I. 

FREE-WILL  AND  INABILITY. 

§  1.  Pelagianism,  Semi-pelagianism,  and  Their  Modifications   62 

^  2.  "New  Divinity"  in  New  England:  Parable  of  the  Great  Sup- 
per  63 

^3.  What  is  Meant  by  Free-will?   64 

§4-  Inability  of  Man   68 

CHAPTER  II. 
PREVENTING  AND  CO-OPERATING  GRACE. 

§  1.  Grace  Defined   70 

g  2.  "Free  Grace:"  In  All  and  For  All   72 

^  3.  Regeneration  Defined   73 

^4.  Preventing  Grace.,.:   77 

^  5.  Co-operating  Grace   77 

6.  Synergism   81 

CHAPTER  III. 
SCRIPTURE  PROOFS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE. 

g  1.  Preliminary     84 

§2.  Moses  and  the  Prophets   84 

?  3.  John  vi.  44-46,  and  Parallel  Passages   85 

H  New  Testament  Examples   87 

g  5.  Synergism  Taught  in  the  Scriptures   89 

PART  III. 

Of  the  Justification  of  Man  (Art.  IX.). 
CHAPTER  I. 

ERRORS  CONCERNINGTHIS  DOCTRINE  STATED  AND  REFUTED. 

'i  1.  Lutheran  Views  of  the  Doctrine   93 

g  2.  Patristic  Statements...*   95 

§3.  Baptismal  Jtstification   97 


Contents. 


5 


PAGB 

§  4.  Views  of  the  Schoolmen   9S 

I  5.  The  Council  of  Trent   99 

^  6.  Bellarmin's  Development  of  the  Tridentine  Theory   101 

g  7.  Merit  Excluded   101 

^8.  Justifying  Faith.,   102 

^  9.  Reconciliation  of  James  with  Paul   102 

1 10.  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  Conference  of  1770   104 

The  Conference  of  1771   106 

1 12.  Universality   107 

1 13.  Terminism   108 

§  14.  Apostates  Answerable  for  All  Their  Sins   109 

^15.  Conclusion   Ill 

CHAPTER  II. 

CATHOLIC   AND    EVANGELICAL   CHARACTER   OF  THIS  DOC- 
TRINE. 

g  1.  Priestly  Pardons   112 

^  2.  The  Creed  and  the  Lord's  Prayer    116 

^3.  Pardon  by  Prerogative  Considered   117 

I  4.  The  Calvinistic  and  Arminian  Ordo  Sah  tis   118 

^5.  Dr.  Cocker's  Erroneous  View  of  Justification   120 

§6.  John  Goodwin  on  Justification   122 

I  7.  John  Calvin  on  Justification   123 

^  8.  John  Wesley  on  Justification   125 

§9.  Objections  Answered   126 

§10.  Conclusion   127 

PART  IV. 

Of  Good  Works  (Art.  X.). 
CHAPTER  I. 


THE  WORKS  DESIGNATED  GOOD. 


^  1.  Good  Works  before  Justification   129 

§2.  Mr.  Wesley  on  Good  Works  in  General   129 

§  3.  Such  Good  Works  Not  Splendid  Sins   131 

§4.  Bishop  Browne  on  the  Thirteenth  English  .Article   131 

§5.  Definition  of  Good  Works   131 

I  6.  Scriptural  Examples  Considered   132 

CHAPTER  II 

RELATION  OF  GOOD  WORKS  TO  SIN  AND  DIVINE  JUDGMENT. 

§  1.  Good  Works  Cannot  Put  Away  Sin   J 33 

I  2.  Good  Works  Cannot  Endure  the  Divine  Scrutiny   134 


6 


Contents. 


CHAPTER  III. 

POSITIVE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  GOOD  WORKS. 

I.  Good  Works  Acceptable  to  God. 

PAGB 

^  1.  Good  Works  Divinkly  Prescribed   137 

^  2.  Good  Works  PerforxMed  by  Divine  Grace   138 

'i  3.  Good  Works  Redound  to  the  Divine  Glory   139 

II.  Good  Works  the  Fruit  of  Faith. 

^1.  Contrast  of  Living  and  Dead  Faith   141 

?  2.  Our  Lord's  Test   142 

^3.  Dr.  Pope  on  "Living  Faith"   143 

PART  V. 

Of  Works  of  Supererogation  (Art.  XI.Y 
CHAPTER  I. 

THE  ROMAN  DOCTRINE  STATED. 

^L  Supererogation  Defined   145 

§2.  A  Prote-stant  Article   145 

I  3.  iSouRCEs  OF  the  Error   146 

I  4.  Romish  Doctrine  of  Satisfaction   147 

^5.  Evangelical  Counsels   147 

^6.  Jeremy  Taylor  on  Luke  xvii.  10   148 

^  7.  Exposition  of  Luke  xvii.  10   149 

^  8.  The  Two  Great  Commandments   150 

^  9.  No  Distinction  of  Internal  and  External   150 

Works  of  Supererogation  Impossible   151 

CHAPTER  II. 

ALLEGED  SCRIPTURAL  EXAMPLES  CONSIDERED. 

O-  The  Rich  Ruler  and  Voluntary  Poverty   152 

^2.  Christian  Communism   lo3 

^  3.  Celibacy   154 

^  4.  Paul  and  Ministerial  Compensation   155 

5.  Degrebs  in  Excellency   15G 

^6.  Mcehler's  Doctrine  Reviewed   ..  157 

PART  VI. 

Of  Sin  After  Justification  (Art.  XII.). 
CHAPTER  I. 

MR.  WESLEY'S  CHANGES  EXPLAINED  AND  JUSTIFIED. 

§  1.  The  Sub.stitution  of  "  Ju.stification  "  for  "Bapti.sm."   161 

g  2.  The  Romish  Distinction  Between  Mortal  and  Venial  Sin.s...  161 

% 


Contents. 


7 


Page 

^  3.  The  Sin  Agai^jst  the  Holy  Ghost   102 

CHAPTER  II. 

NOVATIANISM. 

l\.  Historical     1G5 

^2.  Critical  Examination  of  Heb.  vi.  4-6   105 

§3.  Critical  Examination  of  Heb.  x.  26-31   lOS 

§4.  The  Ante-Nicene  Church   109 

§5.  Testimony  of  Scripture   170 

g  6.  Ancient  and  Modern  Tendencies  toward  Xovatianism   171 

CHAPTER  III. 
THE  DOGMA  OF  INAM ISSIBLE  GRACE  REFUTED. 

?  1.  Historical   173 

12.  The  Thesis  to  be  Defended   177 

§3.  Amissibility  Set  Forth  in  Scripture  Didactically   177 

§  4.  Amtssibility  Implied  in  Positive  Divine  Injunctions   179 

lb.  Amissibility  Implied  in  Exhortations  to  Perseverance   183 

^6.  Amissibility  Implied  in  Expostulations  Concerning  Apostasy.  186 

§7.  Amissibility  Implied  in  Warnings  Against  Apostasy   189 

I  8.  Amissibility  Implied  in  Rewards  Promised  to  Perseverance  .  191 

^9.  Amissibility  Implied  in  Prayers  for  Perseverance   193 

§  10.  Amissibility  Demonstrated  by  Scriptural  Examples  of  Apos- 
tasy  194 

III.  Amissibility  Inculcated  in  Parables  of  our  Lord   197 

§12.  Amissibility  Shown  by  Weakness  of  Contrary  Arguments..  .  199 

§13.  Flavel's  Four  Grounds  Considered   208 

§  14.  The  Full  Assurance  of  Hope   209 

§15.  Short  and  Easy  Settlement  of  the  Controversy   210 

BOOK  VIL 


Ecclesiology:  The  Doctrine  of  the  Church,  its  Sacraments 

and  Ministry. 


PART  I. 

Of  the  Church  (Art.  XIII.). 
CHAPTER  I. 

THE  CHURCH:  ITS  SCRIPTURAL  IDEA. 

?  1.  The  Distinction  of  Visible  and  Invisible   215 

?  2.  Membership  in  the  Visible  and  Invisible  Churches   215 

§3.  Salvation  AVithout  the  Pale  of  the  Church   216 

§4.  Signification  of  the  Term  Ciiuecii  in  the  Scriptures   217 


8 


Contents, 


^5.  New  Testament  Uses  Discriminated   2i'J 

g  6.  The  Term  in  the  Article,  Catechism,  and  Apostles'  Creed...  220 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  CHURCH  AS  CATHOLIC  AND  VISIBLE. 

1 1.  Confusion  of  the  Protestant  Confessions   221 

I  2.  Greek,  Roman,  and  High-church  Errors   22,'J 

§  3.  The  True  View  of  the  Church,  Visible  and  Catholic  223 

CHAPTER  ill. 

THE  NOTES  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

^  1.  Notes  Enumerated  by  the  Reformers   225 

'i  2.  Cardinal  Bellarmin's  Notes   227 

'i  3.  Catholicity   227 

H-  Antiquity  220 

g  5.  Duration   231 

?G.  Amplitude  ,   232 

?  7.  Episcopal  Succession  233 

I  8.  Apostolical  Agreement  233 

?9.  Unity....:   234 

§10.  Sanctity  of  Doctrine   237 

Efficacy  of  Doctrine   238 

?12.  Holiness  of  Life   238  * 

§13.  Miracles   240 

§14.  Prophecy  241 

§15.  Admission  of  Adversaries   241 

§  IG.  Unhappy  End  of  Adversaries   242 

§17.  Temporal  Felicity    242 

§  18.  Conclusion  242 

PART  II. 


Of  Purgatory,  Pardons,  I  mage- worship  etc.  (Art.  XIV.). 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  ROMISH  DOCTRINE  OF  PURGATORY. 

§1.  The  Doctrine  as  Defined  by  Councils  and  Theologians  24G 

§  2.  Alleged  Scriptural  Proofs   247 

§  3.  Patristic  Proofs   250 

§4.  The  Action  of  Councils   251 

§5.  Miraculous  Proofs  251 

§  6.  Rational  Proofs   252 

§7.  Conclusion  253 


Contents.  9 
CHAPTER  II 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PARDONS  OR  INDULGENCES. 

Page 

§  1.  Definition  and  History   254 

I  2.  EoMiSH  Proofs  Considered   258 

CHAPTER  III. 

IMAGE  AND  RELIC  WORSHIP. 

^  1.  Introductory   260 

I  2.  Romish  Statements   260 

§3.  Universality  of  the  Practice   261 

I  4.  Origin  and  Development  of  This  Practice  263 

^  5.  Arguments  for  the  Practice  PcEfuted  264 

CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  INVOCATION  OF  SAINTS. 

§  1.  Introductory   272 

§2.  The  Roman  Position   272 

^3.  The  Romish  Distinction  of  Degrees  or  Kinds  of  Worship  274 

^4.  Mediation  of  Redemption  and  of  Intercession   275 

^5.  The  Saints  ^Iore  Compassionate  Than  Christ   275 

?  6.  Prayers  of  Earthly  and  of  Heavenly  Saints   2<() 

I  7.  Saint?  and  Angels  in  the  Presence  of  God   277 

§8.  Romish  Proofs  from  Scripture  Considered...   277 

§9.  Patristic  Authorities   282 

?i  10.  The  Action  of  Councils   284 

PART  III. 


Of  Speaking  in  the  Congregation  in  such  a  Tongue  as  the  People 
Understand  (Art.  XV.). 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE  PRACTICE  AND  ITS  APOLOGY. 


§1.  The  Religionists  Guilty  of  This  Practice   286 

^2.  The  Apology  Offered   287 

CHAPTER  11. 

THE  PRACTICE  CONDEMNED  BY  SCRIPTURE  AND  THE  PRIMI- 
TIVE CHURCH. 

By  Scripture   289 

§5.  By  the  Primitive  Church   290 

I  3.  Conclusion   291 


10 


Contents. 


PART  IV. 

Of  the  Sacraments  (Art.  XVI.). 
CHAPTER  I. 

THE  SACRAMENTS  IN  GENERAL.  ^^^^ 

n.  ^Ir.  Wesley'.s  Changes     294 

I  2.  The  Definition  of  a  Sacrament   294 

?3.  The  Word  "Sacrament"  '   ..  296 

H-  Historical   297 

'i  5  The  First  Paragraph  Directed  Against  the  Zuinglian  View.  298 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  FIVE  PSEUDO-SACRAMENTS. 

?  \.  The  Two  Sacraments  Ordained  of  Christ   299 

'i  2.  The  Five  Spurious  Sacraments  Repudiated  299 

I  3.  Historical   300 

'i  4.  Romish  Arguments  for  the  Number  Seven   301 

^5.  Confirmation  303 

I  6.  Penance  „   311 

^7.  Orders   323 

?  8.  Matrimony   330 

§9.  Extreme  Unction   340 

CHAPTER  III. 
THE  USE  AND  ABUSE  OF  SACRAMENTS. 

?  1.  The  Abuse   346 

^  2.  The  Rightful  Use  and  Effect   347 

PART  V. 

Of  Baptism  (Art.  XVII.). 
CHAPTER  I. 

DEFINITION  AND  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  BAPTISM. 

H.  Definition   352 

12.  Judaic,  Johannine,  and  Christian  Baptism   352 

1  3.  The  Apostolic  Practice   353 

?4.  Baptism  a  Sign  of  Christian  Profession   354 

^5.  Objections  to  This  Tp:acking  Considered   359 

?  6.  Baptism  a  Sign  of  Regeneration   368 

2  7.  Baptismal  Regeneration  Disproved  and  Repudiated   370 

I  8.  The  .AFode  of  Baptism   377 


Contents. 


11 


CHAPTER  II. 

INFANT  BAPTISM.  f^gs 

^  1.  Introductory   384 

I  2.  Scriptural  Proofs  of  Infant  Baptism   384 

I  3v  Testimony  of  Antiquity   386 

^  4.  Proof  Afforded  by  the  Pelagian  Controversy   390 

Ih.  Protestant  Use  of  Patristic  Testimony   391 

^6.  Infants  Subjects  of  Redeeming  Grace,  Hence  of  Baptism   392 

I  7.  Infants  Embraced  in  the  Gospel  Covenant   392 

I  8.  Unity  of  the  Church  Under  all  Dispensations   39.{ 

§  9.  Baptism  Substituted  for  Circumcision   395 

1 10.  Infant  Church-membership  Recognized  in  the  New  Testa- 

ment „   396 

1 11.  Errors  to  be  Avoided     400 

1 12.  Bishop  Marvin  on  Infant  Baptism  and  Parental  Responsi- 

bility 402 

PART  VI. 

Of  the  Lord's-supper  (Art.  XVIII.). 
CHAPTER  I. 


THE  LORD'S-SUPPER:  DESIGN,  SUBJECTS,  MATTER,  FORM, 


EFFICACY. 

?  1.  A  Sign  of  Christian  Love   406 

^  2.  A  Sacrament  of  Our  Redemption  \   407 

g  3.  The  Subjects  of  This  Ordinance   409 

g  4.  The  Matter  of  This  Sacrament   411 

§5.  The  Form  of  This  Sacrament   415 

I  6.  The  Efficacy  of  This  Sacrament   420 

CHAPTER  II. 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

1 1.  Addition  in  King  Edavard's  Article   426 

§  2.  The  Tridentine  Doctrine  ...   427 

^  3.  Romish  Proofs  from  Scripture  Considered   428 

I  4.  Patristic  Proofs   431 

'1  5.  Further  Roman  Proofs   439 

I  6.  History  of  the  Dogma   441 

I  7.  The  Superstitions  Engendered   443 

?  8.  Lutheran  Consubstantiation   444 

^9.  Calvin's  Theory  of  the  Spiritual  Presence   .  446 

?  10.  Elevation  and  Worship  of  the  Elements   448 


12 


Contents. 


PART  VII. 

Of  Both  Kinds  (Art.  XIX.). 
CHAPTER  I. 

THE  ROMISH  DOCTRINE  AS  DEFINED  BY  THE  COUNCILS. 


PAGB 

1 1.  Introductory   452 

§  2.  The  Council  of  Constance   452 

^3.  The  Council  of  Trent   452 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  ROMISH  ARGUMENTS  STATED  AND  REFUTED. 

§  1.  KoMisH  Claim  Concerning  Christ's  Institution   454 

I  2.  Romish  Claim  of  Christ's  Administration  at  Emmaus   454 

3.  Romish  Claim  Based  on  Passages  in  the  Acts   454 

§  4.  Romish  Use  of  1  Cor.  xi.  27  and  John  vi.  51   455 

5.  Thomas  Aquinas's  Doctrine  of  "  Concomitance."  ,   455^ 

^  6.  Puerile  Objections  to  the  Use  of  Wine   457 

§7.  Romish  Attempts  to  Prove  Apostolic  Half-communion   457 

§8.  The  Hussite  Wars   458 

§9.  Is  the  Romish  Sect  a  Church?   458 

PART  VIII. 


Of  the  One  Oblation  of  Christ,  Finished  Upon  the  Cross  (Art.  XX.). 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  ROMISH  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  MASS. 

§].  Canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent   461 

^2.  The  Roman  Catechism    461 

?  3.  Romish  Proof  from  1  Cor.  x.  21  Considered   462 

^i.  Alleged  Old  Testament  Proofs     463 

?  5.  The  Sacrifice  of  Melchizedek   464 

§6.  Proofs  from  Tradition   466 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  PROTESTANT  POSITION. 

§  1.  TiTF.  Doc^trine  as  Argued  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews   467 

?2.  The  Lord's-supper  Benefits  Only  Those  Present   468 

?  3.  Conclusion  ,   468 


Contents. 


13 


PART  IX. 

Of  the  Marriage  of  Ministers  (Art.  XXI.). 
CHAPTER  I. 

THE  ROMISH  DOCTRINE  STATED  AND  REFUTED. 


1 1.  The  Tridentine  Statement   473 

§2.  Inconsistency  of  the  Chukch  of  Home   474 

§3.  Marriage  of  Apostles  and  Evangelists   474 

I  4.  Paul's  Doctrine   475 

I  5.  Monuments  in  the  Catacombs   478 

I  6.  Historical   478 

CHAPTER  II. 
THE  VOW  OF  CELIBACY. 

1 1.  Such  Vows  Find  No  Support  in  Scripture   480 

I  2.  Grounds  of  the  Romish  Policy   482 

§  3.  Jeremy  Taylor  on  Clerical  Marriage   482 

PART  X. 


Of  the  Rites  and  Cerennonies  of  Churches  (Art.  XXII.). 
CHAPTER  I. 

RITES  AND  CEREMONIES  DEFINED  AND  CLASSIFIED. 


Rites  and  Ceremonies  Defined   486 

12.  Two  Kinds  of  Ceremonif^   488 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  TWO  CLASSES  OF  CEREMONIES. 

§  1.  Ceremonies:  Required  and  Expedient    489 

I  2.  Ceremonies  Laavful   489 

§3.  By  What  Authority  Shall  Ceremonies  Be  Prescribed?   490 

I  4.  Conclusion   492 


BOOK  VIII. 
Christian  Ethics;  or  Moral  Theology. 
PART  I. 

Of  the  Rulers  of  the  United  States  of  America  (Art  XXIII.). 
CHAPTER  I. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  AND  THE  STATE. 

§  1.  The  Article  Devoid  of  Party  Significance   499 

1  2.  Doctrine  of  the  Scriptures   499 


14 


Contend* 


CHAPTER  II. 

POLITICAL  ETHICS. 

'i  1.  Dr.  Pope  ox  Political  Ethics   502 

§4.  Dr.  IIodge  ox  Obediencb:  to  CiviL  Magistrates   503 

PART  11. 


Of  Christian  Men's  Goods  (Art.  XXIV.). 


CHAPTER  !. 

COMMUNISM. 

1 1.  Historical   507 

{.  2.  The  Scriptural  Doctrine   608 

CHAPTER  II. 

CHRISTIAN  ALMSGIVING. 

1.  ScRiPTURiJ  Teachings   511 

§  2.  General  Principles  of  Christian  Condi-ct   512 

§3.  No  Christian  Tithe  Law   513 

PART  III. 


Of  a  Christian  Man's  Oath  (Art.  XXV.). 


CHAPTER  I. 
DEFINITION  AND  HISTORY. 

^  1.  Definition   515 

^  2.  Historical   515 

'  CHAPTER  II. 
THE  LAWFULNESS  OF  OATHS. 

1 1.  Scripture  Teachings   517 

^2.  Our  Saviour's  Command  ,   518 


BOOK  VI. 


ANTpOPOLOGY;  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  IVIAN; 
IN  HIS  TWO  STATES  OF  NATURE  j^ND  OF  GRACE. 

I.  Of  Original  or  Birth  Sin.    (Article  VII.) 
II.  Of  Free  Will.    (Article  YIII.) 

III.  Of  the  Justification  of  Man.    (Article  IX.) 

IV.  Of  Good  Works.    (Article  X.) 

V.  Of  Works  of  Supererogation.    ( Article  XI.) 
VI.  Of  Sin  After  Justification.    (Article  XII.) 


PART  I. 


ARTICLE  VII. 

Of  Original  or  Birth  Sin. 

Origixal  Sin  standeth  not  in  the  following  of  Adam  {as  the  Pela- 
gians do  vainly  talk),  hut  it  is  the  corruption  of  the  nature  of  every 
man,  that  naturally  is  engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam,  whereby 
man  is  very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness,  and  of  his  own  nat- 
ure inclined  to  evil,  ^md  that  continually. 

Introduction. 

The  sound  judgment  of  Jolin  Wesley  was  strikingly  displayed 
in  thus  abridging  the  Ninth  Article  of  the  Anglican  Confession, 
which  reads  as  follows: 

Original  sin  standeth  not  in  the  following  o{  Adam  (as  the  Pelagians  do  vainly 
talk;)  but  it  is  the  fault  and  corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man,  that  naturally 
is  engendered  of  the  offsfpringof  Adam  ;  whereby  man  is  very  far  gone  from  origi- 
nal righteousness,  and  is  of  his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil,  so  that  the  flesh  lust- 
eth  always  contrary  to  the  Spirit;  and  therefore  in  every  person  born  into  the 
world,  it  deservetli  God's  wrath  and  damnation.  And  this  infection  of  nature  doth 
remain,  yea  in  them  that  are  regenerated;  whereby  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  called  in 
Greek  (ppovrjfxa  capKoq  (which  some  do  expound  the  wisdom,  some  sensuality,  some 
the  affection,  some  the  desire,  of  the  flesh,)  is  not  subject  to  the  Law  of  God.  And 
although  there  is  no  condemnation  for  them  that  believe  and  are  baptized;  yet 
the  apostle  doth  confess,  that  concupiscence  and  lust  hath  of  itself  the  nature  of 
sin.f 

*  A  few  i-emarks  conceniing  the  general  scope  of  this  Book  are  here  in  place.  Some 
theologians,  as  Dr.  Knapp,  giving  the  Doctrine  concerning  Man  its  largest  place  in  tlie 
theological  system,  treat  (1)  of  the  state  into  Avhich  man  is  brought  by  the  Fall,  and  (2)  of 
the  state  into  which  man  is  brought  by  the  Reflemption.  These  in  broad  terms  ai-e  the  two 
great  doctrines  of  Sin  and  Salvation  (Hamai-tiology  and  Soteriology).  The  fii-st  is  here 
represented  by  Articles  VII.  and  VIII.,  Of  Original  or  Birth  Sin,"  and  Of  Free  Will." 
and  the  second  by  the  remaining  Articles  of  this  Book.  The  docti-ines  of  Soteriology  have 
already  been  in  part  anticipated  in  Book  II.,  which  treats  of  Christ  and  his  Salvation  (So- 
teriology objective),  and  in  Book  IV.,  which  treats  of  the  Holy  Spii'it  and  his  Administra- 
tion of  Redemption  (Soteriology  subjective).  Bnt  there  is  here  only  an  apparent  sacrifice 
of  system,  in  Books  II.  and  IV.  the  doctrine  of  salvation  gathers  alx)ut  Christ  and  the 
Spirit,  as  the  gi'eat  Agents  in  its  accomplishment:  in  Book  VI.  the  same  docti-ine  finds 
its  center  in  man  as  the  beneficiary  and  subject  of  the  works  of  Christ  and  the  Spirit.— T. 

iThis  text  of  the  Article,  which  Dr.  Summers  did  not  transcribe,  has  been  inserted 
fi-om  the  ''Book  of  Common  Praver"  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  published  bv  T. 
2  '  (17) 


18 


Orifjinal  or  Birth  Sin. 


As  a  minister  of  a  National  Church  whose  confession  was  got- 
ten up  on  the  principle  of  compromise  and  comi^rehension,  AVes- 
ley,  like  other  Arminians  of  the  English  Church,  put  his  own 
construction  upon  this  article,  so  as  to  make  it  quadrate  with 
Arminian  orthodoxy.  AVe  are  very  thankful  that  we  are  not  called 
upon  to  do  the  like.  AVhen  he  abridged  the  Thirty-nine  Articles 
for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  he  omitted  al- 
together the  ambiguous  portion  of  this  article.  Like  the  Seven- 
teenth, the  Ninth  Article  has,  to  say  the  least,  a  Calvinistic 
tinge.  Our  Seventh  Article  is  purely  Arminian  and  Scriptural. 
The  Anglican  Article  was  evidently  derived  from  the  Second 
Article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  which  was  drawn  up  before 
the  Calvinistic  controversy  began,  and  had  in  view  the  Pela- 
gianism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  it  opposes.  The  Augs- 
burg Article  bears  this  title,  "De  Peccato  Originis,"  which  is 
nearly  the  same  as  the  Latin  title  of  the  Anglican  Article,  "De 
Originali  Peccato."    It  reads  thus: 

Our  Clinrclies  likewise  teach  tliat,  since  the  fall  of  Adam,  all  men  who  are  nat- 
urally engendered  are  horn  with  a  depraved  nature  [cum  peccatol,  that  is,  without 
the  fear  of  God  or  confidence  toward  him;  but  with  sinful  i)roi3ensities,  and  tliat 
this  disease,  or  natural  depravity,  is  sin,  and  still  condemns  and  causes  eternal 
death  to  those  who  are  not  born  again  by  baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  They 
condemn  the  Pelagians  and  others  who  deny  that  original  corruption  Ivitium  orif)- 
inW]  is  sin,  and  who,  that  they  may  diminish  the  glory  of  the  merits  and  benefits 
of  Christ,  allege  that  man  may,  by  the  proper  operation  of  reason,  bejustified  be- 
fore God.* 

Kelson  &  Sons,  New  York,  1871,  and  certified  by  Bishop  Horatio  Potter,  under  date  of 
April  3, 1850.— T. 

*  The  full  text  of  the  Aiigslnirg  Confession,  in  both  Latin  and  English,  may  be  found  in 
Ai)pendix  I.  of  Bishop  Burnett's  "Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,"  from  which 
eource  the  above  text  is  extracted.— T. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PELACIANISM,  AUGUSTINIANISM,  ARMiNIANISM. 
I.  Rise  and  Development  of  Pelagianism. 
g  1.  Errors  Attributed  to  Pelagius. 

The  "others"  alluded  to  [in  the  Augsburg  Article]  are  the  pa- 
pists, who  sanctioned  some  of  the  errors  attributed  to  Pelagius. 
We  say  attributed,  for  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  ascertain  his  real 
sentinents.  Hook,  in  his  "  Church  Dictionary,"  gives  the  follow- 
ing account  of  Pelagius  and  his  opinions: 

Pelagius,  being  charged  with  lieresy,  left  Home,  and  "went  into  Africa,  Avhere 
he  was  present  at  the  famous  conference  held  at  Cartilage,  between  the  Catholics 
and  Donatists.  From  Carthage  he  traveled  into  Egypt,  and  at  last  went  to  Jeru- 
salem, where  he  settled.  lie  died  somewhere  in  the  East,  but  where  is  uncertain. 
His  principal  tenets,  as  we  find  them  charged  upon  his  disciple  Cadestius  by  the 
church  of  Carthage,  were  these: 

I.  That  Adam  was  by  nature  mortal,  and,  whether  he  had  sinned  or  not,  would 
have  died, 

II.  That  the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin  were  confined  to  his  person,  and  the 
rest  of  mankind  received  no  disadvantage  thereby. 

III.  That  the  law  qualified  men  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  was  founded 
upon  equal  promises  witii  the  gospel. 

IV.  That,  before  the  coming  of  our  Saviour,  soiiae  men  lived  without  sin. 

Y.  Tiiat  newborn  infants  arc  in  the  same  condition  witli  Adam  before  his 
fall. 

yi.  That  the  general  resurrection  of  the  dead  does  not  follow  in  virtue  of  our 
Saviour's  resurrection. 

YII.  That  a  man  may  keep  the  commands  of  God  without  difficulty,  and  pre- 
serve himself  in  a  perfect  state  of  innocence. 

VIII.  That  rich  men  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  unless  they 
part  with  all  their  estate. 

IX.  That  the  grace  of  God  is  not  granted  for  the  performance  of  every  moral 
act;  the  liberty  of  the  will,  and  information  in  points  of  duty,  being  suflicient  for 
this  purpose. 

X.  That  the  grace  of  God  is  given  in  proportion  to  our  merits. 

XI.  That  none  can  be  called  the  sons  of  God,  but 'those  who  are  perfectly  free 
from  sin. 

XII.  That  our  victory  over  temptation  is  not  gained  by  God's  assistance,  but 
by  the  liberty  of  the  Avill. 

The  great  antagonist  of  Pelagius  was  Augustin,  whose  errors 

(19) 


20 


Original  or  Birth  Sin. 


on  the  one  side  were  as  great  as  those  of  Pelagius  on  the  other; 
yet  the  one  is  canonized  as  a  saint,  and  the  other  cursed  as  a 
heretic.  The  predestinariau  scheme  of  Augustin  is  more  derog- 
atory to  the  divine  glory  and  more  shocking  to  our  reason  and 
sensibilities  than  that  of  Pelagius.  But  it  does  not  follow  from 
this  that  the  errors  attributed  to  the  latter  are  not  great,  and 
that  it  does  not  behoove  us  to  expose  and  denounce  them.  There 
is  no  necessity  of  embracing  Augustianism  in  order  to  avoid 
Pelagianism.  Arminianism  steers  clear  of  the  Scylla  of  the  one, 
and  the  Charybdis  of  the  other.  "  That  Adam  was  by  nature 
mortal,  and,  whether  he  had  sinned  or  not,  would  certainly  have 
died,"  is  plainly  opposed  to  the  Scriptures.  Watson  says  pithily 
("Institutes"  ii.  18,  p.  386): 

The  Pelagian  and  Socinian  notion,  that  Adam  would  have  died  had  he  not 
sinned,  requires  no  other  refutation  than  the  words  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  who  de- 
clares expressly  that  death  entered  the  world  "by  sin;"  and  so  it  inevitably  fol- 
lows, that,  as  to  man,  at  least,  but  for  sin  there  would  have  been  no  death.  .  .  . 
The  opinion  of  those  divines  who  include  in  the  penalty  attached  to  the  first 
offense  the  very  "  fullness  of  death,"  as  it  has  been  justly  termed,  death,  bodily, 
spiritual,  and  eternal,  is  not  to  be  puffed  away  by  sarcasm,  but  stands  firm  on  in- 
spired testimony. 

Indeed  it  does.  God  threatened  Adam  and  Eve  with  death,  in 
case  of  disobedience,  and  that  that  death  included  the  separation 
of  the  soul  from  the  body,  commonly  called  temporal  death,  is 
clear  from  Gen.  iii. — "  Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou 
return."  Hence  they  were  driven  out  of  Paradise,  where  alone 
grew  the  tree  of  life,  which  Avas  the  guarantee  of  their  immortal- 
ity. "In  Adam  all  die,"  says  the  apostle.  The  Jews  always  so 
understood  it.  Thus  we  read  in  Wisdom  ii.  23,  24:  "For  God 
created  man  to  be  immortal,  and  made  him  to  be  an  image  of  his 
own  eternity.  Nevertheless,  through  envy  of  the  devil  came  death 
into  the  v/orld;  and  they  that  do  hold  of  his  side  do  find  it." 

Of  course  the  kindred  dogma  attributed  to  Pelagius,  "That 
the  general  resurrection  of  the  dead  does  not  follow  in  virtue 
of  our  Saviour's  resurrection,"  is  equally  unscriptural,  as  the 
apostle  says  plainly,  "  For  since  by  man  came  death,  by  man 
came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  For  as  in  Adam  all  die, 
even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  (1  Cor.  xv.  21,  22.) 
The  second  and  fifth  propositions  attributed  to  Pelagius  are  spe- 
cially opposed  in  this  article. 


Pelagia n ism ,  A ugustin ian ism,  A rmin lanism. 


21 


§  2.  Pelagianism  before  Pelagius. 

It  lias  been  affirmed  that  these  propositions  were  held  by  the 
Fathers  generally  before  Pelagius,  while  others  deny  this  Sitate- 
ment.  The  truth  is  that  the  primitive  Fathers  were  not  very  pre- 
cise or  consistent  in  their  dogmatic  statements;  hence  they  some- 
times used  language  which  sounds  very  much  like  Pelagianism, 
while  they  also  use  language  such  as  we  would  use  in  regard  to  • 
the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin.  Hagenbach,  speaking  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  says: 

Both  death  and  physical  evils  were  considered  as  the  effects  of  Adam's  sin; 
thus,  e.  g.,  by  Irenseus  and  others.  But  opinions  were  not  as  yet  fully  developed 
concerning  the  moral  depravity  of  each  individual,  and  the  sin  of  the  race  in  gen- 
eral, considered  as  the  effect  of  the  first  sin.  They  were  so  much  disposed  to  look 
upon  sin  as  the  free  act  of  man's  will,  that  they  could  hardly  conceive  of  it  as 
simply  an  hereditary  tendency,  transmitted  from  one  to  another.  The  sin  of 
every  individual,  as  found  in  experience,  had  its  type  in  the  sin  of  Adam,  and 
consequently  appeared  to  be  a  repetition  of  the  first  sin  rather  than  its  necessary 
consequence.  In  order  to  explain  the  mysterious  power  which  drives  man  to  evil, 
they  had  recourse  to  the  influence  of  the  demons,  strong,  but  not  absolutely  com- 
pulsory, rather  than  to  a  total  bondage  of  the  will  as  the  result  of  original  sin. 
Nevertheless,  we  meet  in  the  writings  of  Irenajus  with  intimations  of  more  pro- 
found views  about  the  effects  of  the  fall.  Tertullian  and  Origen  aided  more  defi- 
nitely the  theory  of  original  sin,  though  on  different  grounds.  Origen  thought 
that  souls  were  stained  with  sin  in  a  former  state,  and  thus  enter  into  the  world 
in  a  sinful  conditinn.  To  this  idea  he  added  nnother,  allied  to  the  notions  of  Gnos- 
tics and  Manichees— viz.,  that  there  is  a  stain  in  physical  generation  itself.  Ac- 
cording to  Tertullian,  the  soul  itself  is  propagated  with  all  its  defects,  as  matter 
is  propagated.  The  phrase  vitium  originis,  first  used  by  him,  is  in  perfect  accord- 
ance with  this  view.  But  both  were  far  from  considering  inherent  depravity  as 
constituting  accountability,  and  still  farther  from  believing  in  the  entire  absence 
of  human  liberty.* 

How  nearly  J ustin  Martyr  approached  Pelagius  may  be  seen 
in  the  following: 

Though  Justin  Martyr  uses  strong  expressions  in  lamenting  the  universal  cor- 
ruption of  mankind,  yet  original  sin,  and  the  imputation  of  Adam's  gnilf,  are  con- 
ceptions foreign  to  him.  At  least  man  has  still  such  right  moral  feelings  that  he 
judges  and  blames  the  sin  of  others  as  his.  (Dial  c.  Try  ph.  c.  93,  95.)  Compare 
what  follows,  according  to  which  only  those  filled  with  the  evil  spirit,  or  whollv 
corrupted  by  bad  education  (and  hence  not  the  posterity  of  Adam  as  such)  have 
lost  this  feeling.  Accordingly  every  man  deserves  death,  because  in  his  disobedi- 
ence he  is  like  the  first  man.* 

Clement  of  Alexandria  thinks  man  stands  in  the  same  relation 
to  the  tempter  in  whicn  Adam  stood  before  the  fall.    He  rejects 


*  "  History  of  Doctrines,"  VoT.  I.,  pp.  164-166.— T. 


22 


Ori(jinal  or  Birth  Sin. 


the  opinion  that  original  sin  is  imputed  to  children,  and  does  not 
consider  Psahn  li.  5  as  proof  of  tliis  doctrine.  Origen  is  called 
the  precursor  of  Pelagius.  He  thinks  that  the  death  which  came 
by  sin  (Piom.  v.)  is  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  God;  that  the 
will  is  free;  that  concupiscence  is  not  reckoned  as  sin,  so  long 
as  it  has  not  ripened  into  a  purpose,  guilt  arising  only  when 
we  yield  to  it;  but  that  the  human  soul  does  not  come  into  the 
world  in  a  state  of  innocence,  because  it  sinned  in  a  former  state ; 
yet  that  man  can  be  without  sin,  which  Jerome  calls  Orifjmis  ra- 
muscidus:  the  little  branch  of  Origen,  which  developed  into  the 
tree  of  Pelagianism. 

Tertullian  [as  we  have  seen]  speaks  of  vitiiim  originis,  and  says 
that  evil  has  become  man's  second  nature;  though  he  does  not 
seem  to  impute  original  sin  to  children  as  real  sin,  because  he 
speaks  of  infants  as  innocent,  when  he  pleads  for  the  delay  of 
their  baptism;  yet  he  would  have  them  baptized  to  cleanse  away 
original  sin,  if  there  was  danger  of  their  death!  His  disciple, 
Cyprian,  defends  the  baptism  of  infants  on  the  ground  of  their 
inherent  depravity,  but  it  was  to  cleanse  them  from  a  foreign 
guilt  imputed  to  them,  not  from  any  guilt  which  is  properly  their 
own;  he  speaks  of  original  sin  as  cxmtagio  mortis  antiqua:,  in  Ep. 
59;  but  says  that  it  does  not  annul  freedom. 

Speaking  of  the  Greek  Fathers  of  the  succeeding  period, 
Hagenbach  says: 

Even  those  theologians  who  kept  themselves  free  from  the  influence  of  the  Angns- 
tinian  system,  held  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  followed  by  disastrous  efiects  upon  the 
human  race,  but  restricted  these  evils  (as  the  Fathers  of  the  preceding  period  had 
done)  to  the  mortality  of  the  body,  the  hardships  and  miseries  of  life,  also  admit- 
ting that  the  moral  powers  of  man  had  been  enfeebled  by  the  fall.  Tluis  (Gregory  of 
Nazianzum  in  particular  (to  whom  Augustin  appealed  in  preference  to  all  others) 
maintained  that  both  the  vovr  and  the  -in^X^i  have  been  considerably  impaired  by 
sin  and  regarded  the  perversion  of  the  religious  consciousness  seen  in  idolatry, 
which  previous  teachers  had  ascribed  to  the  influence  of  demons,  as  an  inevitable 
effect  of  the  first  sin.  But  he  was  far  from  asserting  the  total  depravity  of  man- 
kind,  and  the  entire  loss  of  free  will.  On  the  contrary,  the  doctrine  of  the  freedom 
of  the  will  continued  to  be  distinctly  maintained  by  the  Greek  Church.  A  ha- 
nasius  himself,  the  father  of  orthodoxy,  maintained  in  the  strongest  terms  that 
man  has  the  abilitv  of  choosing  good  as  well  as  evil,  and  even  allowed  exceptions 
from  original  sin, 'alleging  that  several  individuals,  who  lived  prior  to  he  ap- 
pearance of  Christ,  were  free  from  it.  Cyril  of  .Jerusalem  also 
life  of  man  beirins  in  a  state  of  innocence,  and  that  sin  enters  only  with  the  use  of 
free  will  Similar  views  were  entertained  by  Ephraem  the  Syrian,  Gregory  of  >ys. 
sa  Ba.il  the  (Ireat,  and  others.    Chrysostom.  whose  whole  tendency  was  of  a  prac 


Pelagianisuij  Atujustinianismy  Arminianism.  .  23 


tical  and  moral  kind,  insisted  most  of  all  upon  the  liberty  of  man  and  his  moral 
self-determination,  and  passed  a  severe  censure  upon  those  who  endeavored  to  ex- 
cuse their  own  defects  by  ascribing  the  origin  of  sin  to  tlie  fall  of  Adam.-^- 

•  Gregory  of  Nyssa  admits  that  there  is  a  marvelous  bias  to  sin, 
but  he  finds  no  sin  in  infants.    Hagenbach  continues: 

During  tiiis  period,  as  well  as  the  preceding,  the  theologians  of  the  Western 
Church  were  more  favorable  than  those  of  the  Eastern  to  the  Augustinian  doc- 
trine. Even  Arnobius  speaks  of  a  connatural  infirmity,  making  men  prone  to  sin. 
Hilary,  and  Ambrose  of  Milan,  taught  the  defilement  of  sin  by  birth;  Ambrose 
appealed  especially  to  Psalm  li.  5  in  support  of  original  sin,  but  without  deter- 
mining to  what  extent  every  individual  shares  in  the  common  guilt.  Neverthe- 
less, neither  of  them  excluded  the  liberty  of  man  from  the  work  of  moral  refor- 
mation. Even  Augustin  himself,  at  an  earlier  period  of  his  life,  defended  human 
freedom  in  opposition  to  the  Manicheans.* 

§  3.  More  Orthodox  Patristic  Views. 

We  have  stated  that  though  the  early  Fathers,  as  we  have 
seen,  used  language  that  savors  of  Pelagianism,  or  Semi-Pela- 
gianism,  yet  they  also  use  language  such  as  we  would  use  in  re- 
gard to  the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin.    Bishop  Browne  says: 

That  tlie  early  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church  held  the  universality  of  hu- 
man corruption,  there  can  be  but  little  question.  A  history  of  infant  baptism  is 
also  a  history  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  baptism  being  for  the  remission  of 
sin.  If  there  were  no  original  sin,  infants  could  liave  no  need  to  be  baptized. 
Hence  Wall,  in  liis  "  History  of  Infant  Baptism,"  has  brought  together,  with  great 
labor  and  fidelity,  ])assages  from  the  earliest  writers,  showing  their  belief  in  the 
original  infection  of  our  nature  from  Adam.  It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the 
Fathers  speak  as  clearly  on  this  point  before,  as  after  the  rise  of  Pelagianism.  But 
a  fair  inspection  of  the  passages  thus  cited  will  convince  us  that  the  doctrine  was 
held  almost  as  clearly  as  is  expressed  in  our  own  article,  from  the  very  earliest 
times  of  the  Church.  For  examples  of  the  language  of  the  Fathers  we  may  take 
the  following  passages:  "Besides the  evil,"  says  Tertullian,  "which  the  soul  con- 
tracts from  the  intervention  of  the  wicked  spirit,  there  is  an  antecedent,  and,  in  a 
certain  sense,  natural  evil  arising  from  its  corrupt  origin.  For,  as  we  have  al- 
ready observed,  the  corruption  of  our  nature  is  another  nature,  having  its  proper 
god  and  father,  namely,  the  author  of  that  corruption."  Cyprian,  and  the  coun- 
cil of  sixty-six  bishops  with  him  (A.D.  253),  in  their  Epistle  to  Fidus,  use  the  fol- 
lowing words:  "If  then  the  greatest  offenders,  and  they  that  have  grievously 
sinned  against  God  before,  have,  when  they  afterward  come  to  believe,  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  and  no  person  is  kept  oflf  from  baptism  and  this  grace,  how  much  less 
reason  is  there  to  refuse  an  infant,  who,  being  newly  born,  has  no  sin  save  that, 
being  descended  from  Adam  according  to  the  flesh,  he  has  from  this  very  birth 
contracted  the  contagion  of  the  death  anciently  threatened;  Avho  comes  for  this 
reason  more  easily  to  receive  forgiveness  of  sins,  because  they  are  not  his  own  but 
others'  sins  that  are  forgiven  him." 


*  "  History  of  Doctrines,"  Vol.  I.,  pp.  293,  295.— T. 


24 


Original  or  Birth  Sin. 


Bishop  Browne,  it  will  be  seen,  fully  indorses  the  error  of 
the  Fathers  in  regard  to  the  virtue  of  baptism.  Alluding  to  Or- 
igen,  he  says: 

At  times  he  speaks  most  clearly  of  all  men  being  born  in  sin,  and  needing  pu- 
rification. For  example,  Augustin  could  not  speak  more  plainly  tlian  the  follow- 
ing in  his  homily  on  Leviticus  viii.  3 :  Quod  si  placet,  etc.  "  Hear  David  speaking, 
'  I  was,'  says  he,  'conceived  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  bring  me  forth,' 
showing  that  every  soul  that  is  born  in  the  flesh  is  polluted  with  the  filth  of  sin 
and  iniquity;  and  that,  therefore,  that  was  said  which  we  mentioned  before,  that 
none  is  clear  from  pollution  though  his  life  be  but  the  length  of  one  day.  Besides 
all  this,  let  it  be  considered  what  is  the  reason  that  whereas  the  baptism  of  the 
Church  is  given  for  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  infants  also  are,  by  the  usage  of  the 
Church,  baptized;  when  if  there  were  nothing  in  infants  that  wanted  forgiveness 
and  mercy,  the  grace  of  baptism  would  be  needless  to  them." 

It  seems  the  question  was  discussed  in  Origen's  day  as  in  ours, 
for,  in  a  homily  on  Luke,  he  says: 

Having  occasion  given  in  this  place,  I  will  mention  a  thing  that  causes  fre- 
quent inquiries  among  the  brethren.  Infants  are  baptized  for  the  forgiveness  of 
sins.  Of  what  sins?  or  when  have  they  sinned?  or  how  can  any  reason  of  the 
law  in  their  case  hold  good,  but  according  to  that  sense  we  mentioned  even  now — 
none  are  free  from  pollution,  though  his  life  be  but  the  length  of  one  day  upon 
the  earth?  And  it  is  for  that  reason,  because  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism  the 
pollution  of  our  birth  is  taken  away,  that  infants  are  baptized. 

So  in  his  Commentary  on  Eomans: 

For  this  also  it  was,  that  the  Church  had  from  the  apostles  a  tradition  (or  or- 
der) to  give  baptism  even  to  infants.  For  they  to  whom  the  divine  mysteries 
were  committed  knew  that  there  is  in  all  persons  the  natural  pollution  of  sin, 
which  must  be  done  away  by  water  and  the  Spirit ;  by  reason  of  which  the  body 
itself  is  called  the  body  of  sin. 

§  4.  Infant  Baptism. 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  state  that  it  does  not  follow  that  be- 
cause a  man  baptizes  children  he  therefore  believes  that  they 
were  born  in  sin,  or  that  they  are  cleansed  from  original  sin  in 
and  by  baptism.  Pelagius  himself  baptized  infants,  and  says 
he  never  heard  of  any,  orthodox  or  heretic,  who  did  not;  but  he 
says  they  were  baptized  in  order  to  the  remission  of  future  sins; 
but  children  who  die  without  baptism,  he  thought,  would  be 
saved,  though  they  would  experience  a  less  degree  of  felicity 
than  those  that  w^ere  baptized.  Augustin  says,  "A  short  time 
ago,  when  I  was  at  Carthage,  I  heard  the  passing  remark  from 
some  that  infants  are  not  baptized  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
but  as  an  act  of  consecration  to  Christianity."    He  may  have 


Pelag  ia  n  ism,  A  ug  u  stin  ianisw.  Arm  in  ia  uism. 


25 


alluded  to  the  Pelagians;  as  lie  elsewhere  distinguishes  them 
from  some  others  who  founded  infant  baptism  upon  actual  sins 
committed  by  infants — which  is  worse  than  Luther's  vagary  that 
infants  can  believe,  and  may  therefore  be  baptized.  Augustin 
says: 

The  Pelagians  maintain  that  infants  are  so  born  without  any  shackles  whatever 
of  original  sin,  that  there  is  nothing  at  all  to  be  forgiven  them  through  the  sec- 
ond birth,  but  that  they  are  baptized  in  order  to  admission  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,  through  regeneration  to  the  filial  state;  and  therefore  they  are  changed  from 
good  to  better,  but  are  not  by  that  renovation  freed  from  any  evil  at  all  of  the  old 
imputation.  For  they  promise  them,  even  if  unbaptized,  an  eternal  and  blessed 
life,  though  out  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

We  must  take  what  xlugustin  says  of  the  Pelagians  cum  gram. 
But  it  is  clear  that  Pelagius  bai)tized  children  as  an  act  of  conse- 
cration to  Christianity,  as  we  do,  though  we  recognize  in  this  sac- 
rament the  inherent  and  inherited  depravity  of  children  which 
requires  for  its  removal  the  sanctifying  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  symbolized  in  baptism,  not  accomplished  by  it,  which  is 
really  what  many  of  the  Fathers  may  have  meant  by  their  rhe- 
torical, ambiguous,  and  unguarded  language  on  this  subject. 

II.  Rise  and  Development  of  Augustinianism. 

§1.  The  Doctrine  of  Augustin. 

Augustin  was  the  great  antagonist  of  Pelagius  and  Pelagian- 
ism.    Hagenbach  says  he  was  led 

to  conjecture  a  mysterious  connection  subsisting  between  the  transgression  of  Adam 
and  the  sin  of  all  men — a  connection  which  loses  itself  in  the  dim  beginnings  of 
nature  no  less  than  of  history.  Mere  suppositions,  however,  did  not  satisfy  his 
mind;  but,  carrying  out  his  system  in  all  its  logical  consequences,  and  applying  a 
false  exegesis  to  certain  passages,  he  laid  down  the  following  rigid  proposition  as 
his  doctrine:  "As  all  men  have  sinned  in  Adam,  they  are  justly  subject  to  the 
condemnation  of  God  on  account  of  this  hereditary  sin  and  the  guilt  thereof."  * 

By  his  remorseless  logic,  Augustin  concluded  that  non-elect 
and  unbaptized  infants  would  be  damned.  His  line  of  argument, 
says  Hagenbach,  is  as  follows: 

Every  man  is  born  in  sin,  and  stands  therefore  in  need  of  pardon.  He  obtains 
this  by  baptism:  it  cleanses  children  from  original  sin,  and  those  who  are  bap 
tized  in  later  years,  not  only  from  original  sin,  but  also  from  their  actual  trans- 
gressions before  the  baptism.  Since  baptism  is  the  only  and  necessary  condition 
of  salvation,  it  follows  that  unbaptized  children  are  condemned  (this  fully  accorded 

♦"History  of  Doctrines,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  209.— T. 


26 


Original  or  Birth  Sin. 


witli  his  views  on  predestination).  He  Avas  nevertheless  disposed  to  look  upon 
this  con^lemnation  as  mitissima  and  iolerabilior,  though  he  opposed  the  doctrine 
condemned  by  the  Synod  of  Carthage,  in  Canon  ii.  (A.  D.  419),  of  an  intermediate 
state,  in  which  unbaptized  infants  were  said  to  be.* 

Augustin  disclaimed  the  phrases  peccatum  naturae^  jwccatiim 
natiirale,  imputed  to  him  by  the  Pelagians,  always  using  the 
phrase,  which  he  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  use,  peccatum 
orifjinaley  whence  our  phrase,  original  sin.  Augustin  laid  great 
stress  upon  Eom.  v.  12;  rendered  in  the  Yulgate,  which  he  used, 
in  quo  onnies  ijeccaverunt,  "in  whom  all  have  sinned,"  as  in  the 
margin  of  the  Authorized  Version,  where  the  text  is  correct,  "  for  * 
that  all  have  sinned."  But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  his  ap- 
palling system  was  built  up  exclusively  on  this  exegetical  error. 
Hagenbacli  traces  it  to  other  causes: 

1.  His  own  experience.  2.  Perhaps  some  vestige?  of  his  former  Manichean 
notions,  of  which  he  himself  might  be  unconscious,  e.  g.,  defilement  in  the  act  of 
generation:  concupiscence,  he  says,  is  not  attributed  to  the  regenerate  as  sin,  but, 
as  far  as  nature  is  concerned,  it  is  not /without  sin;  hence  every  one  conceived  and 
born  in  the  way  of  nature  is  under  sin  until  he  is  born  again  through  him,  quem 
sine  isia  concupiscentia  virgo  concepit.  3.  His  realistic  mode  of  thinking,  which  led 
liim  to  confound  the  abstract  with  the  concrete,  and  to  consider  the  individual  as 
a  transient  and  vanishing  part  of  the  whole  {massa  perditionis).  4.  His  notions  of 
the  Church  as  a  living  organism,  and  of  the  effects  of  infarft  baptism.  5.  The 
opposition  which  he  was  compelled  to  make  to  Pelagianism  and  its  possible  con- 
sequences, threatening  to  destroy  all  deeper  views  of  the  Christian  system.  Thus, 
according  to  Augustin,  not  only  was  physical  death  a  punishment  inflicted  upon 
Adam  and  all  his  posterity,  but  he  looked  upon  original  sin  itself  as  being  in  some 
sense  a  punishment  of  the  first  transgression,  though  it  was  also  a  real  sin  (God 
punishes  sin  by  sin),  and  can  therefore  be  imputed  to  every  individual.  But  it 
is  on  this  very  point,  first  strongly  emphasized  by  him,  viz.,  the  imputa- 
tion of  original  sin,  that  his  views  differed  from  all  former  opinions,  however 
strict  they  were.  He  endeavored  to  clear  himself  from  the  charge  of  Maniclie- 
ism  (in  opposition  to  Julian),  by  designating  sin,  not  as  a  substance,  but  as  a  vitium, 
a  languor;  he  even  charged  his  opponents  with  Manicheism.  So  too  he  could  very 
well  distinguish  between  the  sin,  which  is  common  to  all  men,  and  proper  crime, 
from  which  the  pious  are  preserved.    (Sec.  111.  Vol.  I.  301.) 

The  doctrine  thus  formulated  by  Augustin  obtained  largely  in 
the  Western  Church,  but  not  in  the  Eastern.  The  Greek  Church 
has  always  been  Libertarian  and  Synergistic,  with  a  strong  bias 
to  Semi-Pelagianism. 

§2.  The  Doctrine  among  the  Scholastics. 

The  schoolmen  discussed  the  subject  of  original  sin  in  all  its 

*  "  History  of  Doctrines,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  360.— T. 


Pelar/ianism,  Augustinianism,  Arminianisni.  27 

bearings.  They  generally,  liovrever,  maintained  tliat  man's  body 
was  infected  by  the  fall,  from  the  poison  of  the  forbidden  fruit, 
or  some  other  cause;  but  the  soul  suffered  only  as  deprived  of 
that  which  man  possessed  in  his  primeval  state,  the  presence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  supernatural  rigliteousness,  and  as  having 
the  imputation  of  sin  derived  from  xldam.  The  infection  of  the 
body  is  not  sin,  but  a  fuel  which  might  be  kindled  into  sin;  the 
soul  however  contracted  (juilt  from  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt, 
not  sin  from  the  inheritance  of  Adam's  sin.  Augustin  doubted 
whether  the  soul,  as  well  as  the  body,  is  derived  from  the  parents, 
and  so  contracts  sin  from  them;  but  the  schoolmen  were  general- 
ly Creationists,  and  so  denied  the  derivation  of  sin  to  the  soul, 
which  is  infected  by  union  with  the  body. 

§3.  The  Council  of  Trent. 
The  Council  of  Trent  reverted  nearly  to  th5  Augustinian 
stand-point.  The  Council  decreed  (1)  that  Adam  by  transgres- 
sion lost  holiness  and  justice,  incurred  the  wrath  of  God,  death, 
thralldom  to  the  devil,  and  was  infected  both  in  body  and  soul; 
(2)  that  Adam  derived  to  his  posterity  death  of  body  and  sin  of 
soul;  (3)  that  sin  transmitted  by  generation,  not  by  imitation,  can 
be  abolished  by  no  remedy  but  the  death  of  Christ,  and  that  his 
•merit  is  applied  to  children  in  baptism,  as  well  as  to  adults;  (4) 
that  newly  born  children  ought  to  be  baptized,  as  having  con- 
tracted sin  from  Adam;  (5)  that  by  the  grace  of  baptism  the  guilt 
of  original  sin  is  remitted,  and  all  is  removed  which  has  the  true 
and  proper  nature  of  sin ;  and  though  the  concupiscence  remain- 
ing is  called  by  the  apostle  sin,  the  Synod  declared  that  it  is  not 
true  and  proper  sin,  but  is  so  termed  because  it  arises  from  sin 
and  inclines  to  it.  The  Fathers  of  Trent  have  the  advantage  of 
Augustin  in  this,  that  they  do  not  embarrass  the  doctrine  with 
the  predestinarian  views  of  that  Father.  They  admit  with  him 
that  unbaptized  infants  are  damned  because  of  Adam's  sin,  but 
they  do  not  allow  that  any  who  are  baptized  are  damned,  whereas 
Augustin  held  that,  baptized  or  not  baptized,  non-elect  infants 
are  damned.  The  Ninth  Anglican  Article  condemns  their  notion 
that  concupiscence  is  not  properly  sin. 

§  4.  The  Lutheran  View. 

The  Lutherans  hold  that  concupiscence  has  the  nature  of  sin, 
and  that  the  infection,  though  not  the  imputation  of  sin,  remains 


28 


Original  or  Birth  Sin. 


in  the  baptized  and  regenerate.  The  Augsburg  Confession  says 
it  is  truly  sin  and  deserving  of  damnation  unless  we  are  bom 
again  by  baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

§  5.  John  Calvin. 

Calvin  differs  very  little  from  Augustin,  who  was  his  great 
model.  He  describes  this  subject  at  great  length  in  his  "Insti- 
tutes," Book  II.,  Chap,  i.,  5-11.    He  says: 

As  the  spiritual  life  of  Adam  consisted  in  a  union  to  his  Maker,  so  an  aliena- 
tion from  him  was  the  deatli  of  his  soul.  When  the  divine  image  in  him  was  ob- 
literated, and  he  was  punished  with  the  loss  of  wisdom,  strength,  sanctity,  truth, 
and  righteousness,  with  which  he  had  been  adorned,  but  which  was  succeeded  by 
the  dreadful  pests  of  ignorance,  impotence,  impurity,  vanity,  and  iniquity,  he  suf- 
fered not  alone,  but  involved  all  his  posterity  with  him,  and  plunged  them  into 
the  same  miseries.  This  is  that  hereditary  corruption  whicli  the  Fathers  called 
orirjinal  sin — meaning  by  sin,  the  depravation  of  a  nature  previously  good  and 
pure;  on  which  subject  they  had  much  contention,  nothing  being  more  remote 
from  natural  reason  than  that  all  should  be  criminated  on  account  of  the  guilt  of 
one,  and  thus  his  sin  become  common ;  which  seems  to  be  the  reason  why  the  most 
ancient  doctors  of  the  Church  did  but  obscurely  glance  at  this  point,  or  at  least 
explained  it  with  less  perspicuity  than  it  required.  Yet  this  timidity  could  not 
prevent  Pelagius  from  arising,  who  profanely  pretended  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
only  ruined  himself,  and  did  not  injure  his  descendants.  By  concealing  the  dis- 
ease with  this  delusion,  Satan  attempted  to  render  it  incurable.  But  when  it  was 
evinced  by  the  plain  testimony  of  the  Scripture  that  sin  was  communicated  from 
the  first  man  to  all  his  posterity,  he  sophistically  urged  that  it  was  communicated 
by  imitation,  not  by  propagation.  Therefore  good  men,  and  beyond  all  others 
Augustin,  have  labored  to  demonstrate  that  we  are  not  corrupted  by  any  adven- 
titious means,  but  that  we  derive  an  innate  depravity  from  our  very  birth. 

He  then  cites  Ps.  li.  5;  Job  xiv.  4;  Kom.  v.  12.,  19;  1  Cor.  xv. 
22;  Eph.  ii.  3;  John  iii.  5,  6,  in  support  of  this  view.  He  pro- 
ceeds: 

Nor,  to  enable  us  to  understand  this  subject,  have  we  any  need  to  enter  on  tliat 
tedious  dispute  with  which  the  Fatiiers  were  not  a  little  perplexed,  wliether  the 
soul  of  a  son  proceeds  by  derivation  or  transmission  from  the  soul  of  the  father, 
because  the  soul  is  the  principal  seat  of  the  pollution.  We  ought  to  be  satisfied 
with  this,  that  the  Lord  deposited  with  Adam  the  endowments  he  chose  to  confer 
on  human  nature,  and  therefore  that  when  he  lost  the  favors  he  had  received  he 
lost  them  not  only  for  himself,  but  for  us  all.  Who  will  be  solicitous  about  a  trans- 
mission of  the  soul  when  he  hears  that  Adam  received  the  ornaments  that  he  lost 
no  less  for  us  than  himself?  that  they  were  given  not  to  one  man  only,  but  to  the 
whole  human  nature?  There  is  nothing  absurd  therefore  if,  in  consequence  of  his 
being  spoiled  of  his  dignities,  that  nature  be  destitute  and  poor,  if,  in  consequence  of 
his  being  polluted  with  sin,  the  whole  nature  be  infected  with  the  contagion.  From 
a  putrefied  root  therefore  have  sprung  putrid  branches,  which  have  transmitted 


Pelagianism^  AugiisUnianism,  Arminianisnu  29 


their  putrescence  to  remote  ramifications.  For  tlie  clilldren  were  so  vitiated  in 
their  parent  that  they  became  contagions  to  their  descendants:  there  was  in  Adam 
such  a  spring  of  corruption  that  it  is  transfused  from  parents  to  chiklren  in  a  per- 
petual stream.  But  the  cause  of  the, contagion  is  not  in  the  substance  of  the  body 
or  of  the  soul,  but  because  it  was  ordained  by  God  that  tiie  gifts  wbich  he  conferred 
on  the  first  man  should  by  him  be  preserved  or  lost  both  for  himself  and  for  all  his 
posterity.  But  the  cant  of  the  Pelagians,  that  it  is  improbable  that  children  should 
derive  corruption  from  pious  parents,  wiiereas  they  ought  rather  to  be  sanctified 
by  their  purity,  is  easily  refuted,  for  they  descend  from  their  carnal  generation, 
not  from  their  spiritual  generation.  Therefore,  as  Augustin  says,  "  Neither  the 
guilty  unbeliever,  nor  ti)e.justified  believer,  generates  innocent  but  guilty  children, 
because>the  generation  of  both  is  from  corrupted  nature."  If  they  in  some  meas- 
ure participate  of  the  sanctity  of  their  parents,  that  is  the  peculiar  benediction  of 
the  people  of  God,  which  supersedes  not  the  first  and  universal  curse  previously 
denounced  on  the  human  nature:  for  their  guilt  is  from  nature,  but  their  sanctifi- 
cation  from  supernatural  grace. 

On  Calvin's  basis  it  would  seem  that  he  ought  not  to  have 
evaded  the  question  concerning  Creationism  and  Traducianism, 
but  to  have  affirmed  the  latter,  from  which,  however,  his  master 
Augustin  shrunk.    Calvin  thus  defines  original  sin : 

An  hereditary  pravity  and  corruption  of  our  nature  diffused  through  all  th« 
parts  of  the  soul,  rendering  us  obnoxious  to  the  divine  wrath,  and  i)roducing  in  us 
those  works  whicli  the  Scripture  calls  "  works  of  the  flesh."  And  this  is  indeed 
what  Paul  frequently  denominates  sin.  Tliese  two  things  therefore  should  be  dis- 
tinctly observed:  First,  that  our  nature  being  so  totally  vitiated  and  depraved, 
we  are,  on  account  of  this  very  corruption,  considered  as  convicted  and  justly 
condemned  in  the  sight  of  God,  to  whom  nothing  is  acceptable  but  right- 
eousness, innocence,  and  purity.  And  this  liableness  to  punishment  arises  not 
from  the  delinquency  of  another;  for  when  it  is  said  that  the  sin  of  Adam  ren- 
ders us  obnoxious  to  the  divine  judgment,  it  is  not  to  be  understood  as  if  we, 
though  innocent,  v/ere  undeservedly  loaded  with  the  guilt  of  his  sin;  but  because 
we  are  all  subject  to  a  curse,  in  consequence  of  his  transgression,  he  is  therefore 
said  to  have  involved  us  in  guilt.  Nevertheless,  we  derive  from  him,  not  only 
the  punishment,  but  also  the  pollution  to  which  the  punishment  is  justly  due. 
Wherefore  Augustin,  though  he  frequently  calls  it  the  sin  of  another,  the  more 
clearly  to  indicate  its  transmission  to  us  by  propagation,  yet,  at  the  same  time, 
also  asserts  it  properly  to  belong  to  every  individual.  And  the  apostle  himself 
expressly  declares  that  "death  has  therefore  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all 
have  sinned;"  tliat  is,  have  been  involved  in  original  sin  and  defiled  with  its 
blemishes.  And  therefore  infants  themselves,  as  they  bring  their  condemnation 
into  the  world  with  them,  are  rendered  obnoxious  to  punishment  by  their  own 
sinfulness,  not  by  the  sinfiilness  of  another.  For  though  they  have  not  yet  pro- 
duced the  fruits  of  their  iniquity,  yet  they  have  the  seed  of  it  within  them,  even 
their  whole  nature  is,  as  it  were,  a  seed  of  sin,  and  therefore  cannot  but  be  odious 
and  abominable  to  God.  Whence  it  follows  that  it  is  properly  accounted  sin  in 
the  sight  of  God,  because  there  could  be  no  guilt  without  crime.   The  other  thing 


80 


Original  Of  Birth  Bin. 


to  be  remarked  is  that  this  depravity  never  ceases  in  us,  hut  is  perpetually  pro- 
ducing new  fruits,  those  works  of  the  flesh  which  we  have  before  described,  like 
the  emission  of  flame  and  sparks  from  a  lieated  furnace,  or  like  the  streams  of 
water  from  a  never-fuiling  spring.  Wherefore  those  who  have  defined  original 
Bin  as  a  privation  of  the  original  righteousness,  which  we  ought  to  possess,  though 
they  comprise  the  whole  of  the  subject,  yet  have  not  used  language  sufliciently 
expressive  of  its  operation  and  influence.  For  our  nature  is  not  only  destitute 
of  all  good,  but  is  so  fertile  in  all  evils  that  It  cannot  remain  inactive,  Tliose 
who  liave  called  it  conmpiscence  have  used  an  expression  not  improper,  if  it  were 
only  added,  Avhicli  is  far  from  being  conceded  by  most  persons,  that  every  thing 
in  man,  the  understanding  and  will,  the  Ronl  and  body,  is  polluted  and  engrossed 
by  this  concupiscence  ;  or,  to  express  it  more  briefly,  that  man  is  of  himself  noth- 
ing else  but  concupiscence.  .  .  .  We  say  therefore  that  man  is  corrupted  by  a 
natural  depravity,  but  which  did  not  originate  from  nature.  We  deny  that 
it  proceeded  from  nature,  to  signify  that  it  is  rather  an  adventitious  quality  or 
accident,  than  a  substantial  property  originally  innate;  yet  we  call  it  natural, 
that  no  one  may  suppose  it  to  be  contracted  by  every  individual  from  corrupt 
habit,  whereas  it  prevails  over  all  by  hereditary  right.  Nor  is  this  representa- 
tion of  ours  without  authority;  for  the  same  reason  the  apostle  says  that  we  are 
all  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath.  How  could  God,  who  is  pleased  with  all  his 
meanest  works,  be  angry  with  the  noblest  of  his  creatures?  But  he  is  angry  rath- 
er with  the  corruption  of  his  work  than  with  the  work  itself.  Therefore  if,  on 
account  of  the  corruption  of  human  nature,  man  be  justly  said  to  be  naturally 
abominable  to  God,  he  may  also  be  truly  said  to  be  naturally  depraved  and  cor- 
rupt; as  Augustin,  in  consequence  of  the  corruption  of  nature,  hesitates  not  to  call 
those  sins  natural  which  necessarily  predominate  in  our  flesh,  where  they  are  not 
prevented  by  the  grace  of  God.  Thus  vanishes  the  foolish  and  nugatory  system 
of  the  Manicheans,  who,  having  imagined  in  man  a  substantial  wickedness,  pre- 
sumed to  invent  for  him  a  new  creator,  that  they  might  not  appear  to  assign  the 
cause  and  origin  of  evil  to  a  righteous  God. 

This  theory  of  Calvin  inTolves  the  damnation  of  infants,  un- 
less they  are  saved  from  the  condemned  mass  of  Adam's  poster- 
ity by  the  decree  of  predestination,  by  which  some  are  elected 
to  be  saved  and  others  reprobated.  This  "  horrible  decree,"  as 
Calvin  calls  it,  is  set  forth  in  his  third  book,  where  (chap,  xxiii.  7), 
in  a  bitter  reply  to  objectors,  he  says: 

How  came  it  to  pass  that  the  fall  of  Adam,  independent  of  any  remedy,  should 
involve  ko  many  nations  with  their  infant  children  in  eternal  death,  but  because 
such  was  the  will  of  God?  Their  tongues,  so  loquacious  on  every  other  point, 
must  here  be  struck  dumb.  It  is  a  horrible  decree  {decretvM  horribile),  I  confess; 
but  no  one  can  deny  that  God  foreknew  the  future  final  fate  of  man  before  he 
created  him,  and  that  he  did  foreknow  it  because  it  was  appointed  by  his  own 
decree. 

We  have  thus  at  length  presented  Calvin's  theory  of  original 
sin  as  A  development,  with  a  slight  modification,  of  Augustin 's, 


PelagianisWi  Augustiniamsw,  Arniimanism,  81 


and  as  the  archetype  of  all  the  Calvinistic  Confessions  on  this 
doctrine,  and  of  the  writings  ot  leading  Calvinistic  divines,  many 
of  Avhom  affirm,  like  Augustin  and  Calvin,  that  infants  not  only 
possess  inherent  and  inherited  depravity,  but  that  if  they  are 
unbaptized,  or  non-elect,  they  are  damned  for  it,  though  they 
die  before  they  have  lived  a  single  day !  Hence  they  are  called 
''the  hard  fathers  of  infants."  Were  this  the  only  explanation 
of  original  sin,  it  would  be  our  bounden  duty  to  renounce  it  with 
utter  detestation  and  abhorrence. 

§  6.  Reactions  from  Calvinism, 
This  execrable  caricature  of  the  doctrine  had  not  a  little  to  do 
in  causing  its  rejection  by  many,  shortly  after  the  Eeformation, 
and  indeed  to  this  day. 

Thus  the  Socinians,  in  their  abhorrence  of  Calvinism,  swung 
over  to  Pelagianism,  and  their  descendants,  the  Unitarians, 
adopt  their  views.  So  the  Anabaptists.  The  Anglican  Article 
in  the  first  draught  of  it,  in  1552,  reads,  "  Original  sin  standeth 
not  in  the  following  of  Adam,  as  the  Pelagians  do  vainly  talk, 
which  also  the  Anabaptists  do  nowadays  receive."  Bishop 
Browne  remarks,  "Their  rejection  of  infant  baptism  was  of  a 
piece,  and  naturally  connected  with  their  denial  of  original 
sin."  That  is  quite  likely,  though,  as  we  have  seen,  Pelagius 
baptized  children  notwithstanding  his  denial  of  original  sin; 
while  most  of  the  Anabaptists  of  the  present  time — the  Gen- 
eral, Particular,  Primitive,  and  some  other  sects  of  Baptists — - 
indorse  the  Calvinistic  theory  of  original  sin,  and  yet  repudiate 
infant  baptism.  Another  division  of  them,  however,  the  Camp- 
bellites  (so-called),  are  largely  tinctured  with  Pelagianism.* 


in.  Via  Media  of  Arminianism* 
§  1.  Statement  of  the  Arminian  View. 
•  Arminius  steers  clear  of  Pelagianism  and  Augustinianism,  and 
gives  the  true  scriptural  account  of  original  sin.   In  liis  seventh 

*  We  called  the  attention  of  one  of  their  preachers  to  a  Pelagian  passage  in  the 
Gospel  Advocate,  one  of  their  periodicals,  and  asked  him  how  many  of  their  min- 
isters believed  it.  He  said  he  did  not  know,  but  supposed  a  good  many  of  them, 
as  he  did  himself.  We  told  him  it  was  Pelagian  heresy,  but  he  neither  knew  nor 
cared  about  that — he  believed  it! 


32 


Original  or  Birth  Sin. 


Public  Disputation  "  On  the  First  Sin  of  the  First  Man,"  he 
says  in  Propositions  xv.,  xvl,  Works  I.  485,  486: 

Tlie  proper  and  immediate  effect  of  this  sin  was  the  offending  of  tlie  Deity. 
For  since  the  form  of  f*in  is  the  transgression  of  tlie  law"  (1  John  iii.  4),  it  pri- 
marily and  immediately  [impingiQ  strikes  against  the  Legislator  himself  (Gen. 
iii.  11),  and  this  with  the  ofiending  of  one  whose  express  will  it  was  that  his  law 
[non  impingi]  should  not  be  ofiended.  From  this  violation  of  liis  law,  God  con- 
ceives just  displeasure,  which  is  the  second  effect  of  sin  (iii.  lG-19,  23,  24).  But 
to  anger  succeeds  infliction  of  punishment,  which  was  in  this  instance  twofold: 
(1)  [Eeatus^  ^  Hability  to  two  deaths  (ii.  17;  Rom.  vi.  23).  (2)  IPrivatio]  The 
withdrawing  of  the  primitive  righteousness  and  holiness,  which,  because  they  are 
the  effects  of  the  Holy  Spirit  dwelling  in  man,  ought  not  to  Iiave  remained  in  him 
after  he  had  fallen  from  the  favor  of  God,  and  had  incurred  the  divine  displeasure 
(Luke  xix.  2C).  For  this  Spirit  is  a  seal  of  God's  favor  and  good-will  (Rom.  viii. 
14,  15;  1  Cor.  ii.  12).*  The  whole  of  this  sin,  however,  is  not  peculiar  to  our  first 
parents,  but  is  common  to  the  entire  race  and  to  all  their  posterity,  who,  at  the  time 
when  this  sin  was  committed,  were  in  their  loins,  and  who  have  since  descended 
from  them  by  the  natural  mode  of  propagation,  according  to  the  primitive  bene- 
diction. For  in  Adam  "all  have  sinned"  (Rom.  v.  12).  "Wherefore,  whatever 
punishment  was  brought  down  upon  our  first  parents,  has  likewise  pervaded  and 
yet  pursues  all  their  posterity.  So  that  all  men  "are  by  nature  the  children  of 
wrath"  (Eph.  ii.  3),  obnoxious  to  condemnation  and  to  temporal  as  well  as  to  eter- 
*  nal  death;  they  are  also  devoid  of  that  original  righteousness  and  holiness  (Rom. 
V.  12,  18,  19).  With  these  evils  they  would  remain  oppressed  forever  unless  they 
were  liberated  by  Christ  Jesus;  to  whom  be  glory  forever. 

In  his  Private  Disputations  he  expands  this  view.  Thus  Dis. 
xxxi..  Works  II.  78,  79: 

Because  the  condition  of  the  covenant  into  which  God  entered  with  our  first 
parents  was  this,  that,  if  they  continued  in  the  favor  and  grace  of  God  by  an  ob- 
servance of  this  command  and  of  others,  the  gifts  conferred  on  them  should  be 
transmitted  to  their  posterity,  by  the  same  divine  grace  which  they  had  them- 
selves received;  but  that  if  by  disobedience  they  rendered  themselves  unworthy  of 
those  blessings,  their  posterity  likewise  [carerenl']  should  not  possess  them,  and 
should  be  [obnoxii']  liable  to  the  contrary  evils.  [Hinc  accidit  ut']  This  was  the 
reason  why  all  men  who  were  to  be  propagated  from  them  in  a  natural  way  be- 
came obnoxious  to  death  temporal  and  eternal,  and  [vacue']  devoid  of  this  gift  of 
the  Holv  Spirit  or  original  righteousness.  This  punishment  usually  receives  the 
appellation  of  "a  privation  of  the  image  of  God,"  and  "original  sin."  But  we 
permit  this  question  to  be  made  a  subject  of  discussion:  Must  some  contrary 
quality,  besides  [carentiam']  the  absence  of  original  righteousness,  be  constituted  as 
another  part  of  original  sin?  though  we  think  it  much  more  probable  that  this 
absence  of  original  righteousness,  only,  is  original  sin  itself,  as  being  that  which 
alone  is  sufficient  to  commit  and  produce  any  actual  sin  whatever.  The  discussion 
whether  original  sin  be  propagated  by  the  soul  or  by  the  body,  appears  to  us  to  be 
useless;  and  therefore  the  other,  wTiether  or  not  the  soul  be  through  traduction, 
seems  also  scarcely  to  be  necessary  to  this  matter. 


Pelagianism^  Aurjustinianismy  Anninanism, 


33 


In  Lis  eleventh  Public  Disputation  lie  says  (Works  1.526): 

In  tilis  state  the  free-will  of  man  toward  the  true  good  is  not  only  wounded, 
maimed,  infirm,  bent,  and  [atienvxilmn']  weakened;  but  it  is  also  [captivatuni]  im- 
jjrisoned,  destroyed,  and  lost,  and  its  powers  are  not  only  debilitated  and  uselesi- 
unless  they  be  assisted  by  grace,  but  it  has  no  powers  whatever  except  such  as  are 
excited  by  divine  grace.  That  this  may  be  made  more  manifestly  to  appear,  Ave 
will  separately  consider  the  mind,  the  affections  or  will,  and  [^polentiam']  the 
capability,  as  contradistinguished  from  them,  as  well  as  the  life  itself  of  an  un- 
rcgeneratc  man. 

He  then  proceeds  to  show  the  depravity  of  the  mind,  affec- 
tions, and  powers,  or,  as  we  would  express  it,  the  intellect, 
sensibilities,  and  will,  and  also  the  life  of  the  unregenerate,  and 
closes  with  an  explicit  announcement  of  the  doctrine  of  prevent- 
ing, continuing,  and  following  grace,  as  absolutely  necessary  to 
the  performance  of  any  good  thing.  Augustin  (whom,  by  the 
way,  in  this  particular,  he  quotes  and  indorses)  could  not  more 
explicitly  set  forth  the  utter  impotency  of  the  natural  man  apart 
from  divine  grace. 

§  2.  Points  of  Difference. 

Wherein  then,  it  may  be  asked,  does  he  differ  from  Angus- 
tin  and  Calvin?  In  this,  he  holds  that  all  who  are  lost  in 
Adam  are  redeemed  by  Christ:  "As  by  the  offense  of  one  judg- 
ment came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation;  even  so  by  the  right- 
eousness of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justifica- 
tion of  life."  (Rom.  v.  18.)  Hence  he  censures  the  opinion  of 
Augustin  and  others  that  infants  unbaptized,  or  non-elect,  are 
damned,  though  not  with  the  punishment  of  feeling,  but  only 
with  that  of  loss.  He  defends  Borrius  against  the  charges  of 
his  opponents,  who  condemned  him  for  holding  that  all  who  die 
in  infancy  are  saved,  whether  baptized  or  not,  and  that  none  of 
them  are  non-elect.  If  Adam  and  Eve  were  allowed  to  propa- 
gate their  species,  though  they  would  transmit  to  them  their 
depravity,  it  would  be  under  the  merciful  provisions  of  the  cov- 
enant of  grace,  by  which  if  they  die  in  infancy  they  must  he  saved, 
and  if  they  live  to  maturity  they  mai/  he  saved,  and  certainly 
irill  he  saved,  unless  they  neglect  the  great  salvation.  See  his 
Apology,  Articles  xiii.,  xiv. :  "  Original  sin  will  condemn  no  man,"  ^ 
and  "In  every  nation,  all  infants  who  die  without  [having  com- 
mitted] actual  sins,  are  saved " :  articles  ascribed  to  Borrius, 
Works  I.  317-322.  Thus  the  liability  to  eternal  death  of  the 
3 


34 


Original  or  Birth  Sin. 


offspring  of  Adam  supposes  their  rejection  of  tlie  grace  offered 
them  in  Christ. 

It  is  observable  that  Arminius  speaks  of  a  twofold  death 
as  the  result  of  the  fall:  temporal  and  eternal.  We  usually 
speak  of  a  threefold  death,  but  he  considers  spiritual  death  as 
the  sin  itself.  But  he  also  speaks  of  the  fall  as  the  separation 
of  the  soul  from  God,  which  we  call  spiritual  death,  so  that 
there  is  really  no  difference  between  us. 

What  ignorance  or  impudence  have  those  men  who  charge 
Arminius  with  Pelagianism,  or  any  leaning  thereto! 

The  Remonstrants — the  followers  of  Arminius — emphatic- 
ally re-aJSirmed  his  opinion,  in  "  the  Five  Points"  presented  to 
the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  warmly  denounced  the  calumnies  of 
their  enemies,  who  ranked  them  with  Pelagians  and  Semi-Pelag- 
ians. They  say:  "  The  Avill  of  man  in  a  lapsed  or  fallen  state, 
and  before  th6  call  of  God,  has  not  the  capability  and  liberty 
of  willing  any  good  that  is  of  a  saving  nature,"  etc.  They  af- 
firm that  "God  foresaw  that  Adam  would  willfully  transgress 
the  law,  and  thereby  make  himself  and  his  jposterity  liable  to 
condemnation,  etc." 

§3.  Methodism  Rejects  the  Semi-Pelagianism  of  Limborch 

and  Others. 

\  It  is  true  Limborch  and  some  other  Remonstrants  who  came 
after,  and  also  Jeremy  Taylor,  Whitby,  and  others,  who  pass 
under  the  name  of  Arminians,  by  a  misnomer,  leaned  toward 
Semi-Pelagianism,  in  asserting  that  the  consequences  of  the 
fall  consist  in  a  great  liability  to  sin  and  in  subjection  to  suffering 
and  death,  for  the  removal  of  which  provision  is  made  in  the  re- 
demption by  Christ.  But  it  is  a  slander  on  Arminius  and  the  Ar- 
minians to  call  that  Arminianism.  All  true  Arminians,  e.  (/., 
the  Methodists,  firmly  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  original  or 
birth  sin,  as  set  forth  in  the  Seventh  and  Eighth  Articles  of  our 
Confession.  Here  is  what  the  standard  Wesleyan  Catechism  says 
on  the  subject: 

Q.  Into  what  state  did  the  fall  bring  mankind? 

A.  The  fall  brought  mankind  into  a  state  of  sin  and  misery.  Rom.  v.  12:  "  By 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin;  and  so  death  passed  upon 
all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned." 

Q.  Wherein  consists  the  sinfulness  of  that  state  into  which  man  fell? 

A.  It  consists  in  the  want  of  original  righteousness,  and  th?  corruption  of  his 


Pelagianism,  Angiistinmnisnij  A rminiani^ni. 


35 


whole  nature,  which  is  commonly  called  original  sin,  together  with  all  actual 
transgressions  which  proceed  from  it.  Rom.  v.  19:  "By  one  man's  disobedience 
many  were  made  sinners."  Rom.  iii.  10:  "  There  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one." 
Ps.  l"i.  5:  "Behold  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive 
me." 

Q.  In  what  consists  the  misery  of  that  state  into  which  man  fell? 

A.  All  mankind  being  born  in  sin,  and  following  the  devices  and  desires  of 
their  own  corrupt  hearts,  are  under  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God,  and  so  are  made 
liable  to  the  miseries  of  this  life,  to  death  itself,  and  to  the  pains  of  hell  hereafter. 
Eph.  ii.  .S:  "  And  were  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others."  Gal.  iii. 
10:  "Cursed  is  every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  whicli  are  written  in 
the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them."    Rom.  vi.  23:  "The  wages  of  sin  is  death." 

§  4.  Methodist  Doctrine  of  Universal  Vicarious  Satisfaction 
for  Original  Sin. 

[Methodism,  liolcling  fast  an  evangelical  Armiiiian  theolog}% 
makes  void  tlie  oft- repeated  Calviiiistic  charge  of  "rationalism," 
*' Pelagianism,"  etc.,  by  giving  an  adequate  interpretation  of 
Rom.  V.  12-21,  and  incorporating  the  teachings  of  this  great 
scripture  in  its  S3'steQi.  Paul  declares:  "Through  one  man  sin 
entered  into  the  world,  and  death  through  sin;  and  so  death 
passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned."  (Rom.  v.  12.)  Noth- 
ing is  to  be  gained  by  attempting  to  break  tlie  force  of  the  aorist 
in  the  clause,  "for  that  all  sinned."  It  has  its  usual  force,  re- 
ferring to  a  momentary  occurrence  in  past  time,  as  opposed  to 
the  imperfect,  denoting  continuous  action  in  the  past.  Of  course 
the  momentary  occurrence  was  the  sin  and  fall  of  Adam.  John 
Wesley  translates"^  and  comments  as  follows:  "Even  so  death 
2)asse(l  upon  all  men — namely,  by  one  man,  in  that — so  the  word 
is  used  also,  2  Cor.  v.  4:  all  sinned — in  Adam.    These  words  as- 

*  In  liis  preface  to  his  "  Explanatory  Notes  on  the  Xew  Testament,"  from  which 
the  above  quotation  is  taken,  Mr.  "Wesley  says:  "  In  order  to  assist  these  in  such 
a  measure  as  I  am  able,  I  design  first  to  set  down  the  text  itself,  for  the  most  part, 
in  the  common  Ehrjlish  translation,  which  is,  in  general  (so  far  as  I  can  judge), 
abundantly  the  best  that  I  have  seen.  Yet  I  do  not  say  it  is  incapable  of  being 
brought  in  several  places  nearer  to  the  original.  Xeither  will  I  afBrm  that  the 
Greek  copies  from  which  this  translation  was  made  are  always  the  most  correct. 
And  therefore  I  shall  take  the  liberty,  as  occasion  may  require,  to  make  here  and 
there  a  small  alteration."  "  Of  the  many  points  of  interest  connected  with  the 
translation  of  IGll,"  say  the  Revisers  of  1881  in  the  New  Testament  preface,  "  two 
re(piire  special  notice;  first,  the  Greek  text  which  it  appears  to  have  represented; 
and,  secondly,  the  character  of  the  translation  itself."  John  "Wesley's  attitude  to- 
ward such  a  revision  is  not  difficult  to  infer.  His  changes  in  his  New  Testament 
"Notes"  often  practically  coincide  with  those  of  the  Revision. — T. 


36 


Original  or  Birth  Sin, 


sign  the  reason  why  death  came  upon  all  men;  infants  themselves 
not  excepted,  in  that  all  sinned.'''' 

It  need  hardly  be  said  that  no  personal  i^articipation  of  Adam's 
posterity  in  his  sin  is  meant.  As  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  says 
("Commentary  on  Eomans,"  p.  236 j,  "To  say  that  a  man  acted 
thousands  or  years  before  his  personality  began  does  not  rise 
even  to  the  dignity  of  a  contradiction;  it  has  no  meaning  at  all. 
It  is  a  monstrous  evil  to  ipake  the  Bible  contradict  the  common 
sense  and  common  consciousness  of  men."  Dr.  Hodge  proceeds 
to  advance  his  own  view  that  all  men  "were  regarded  and  treated 
as  sinners  on  account  of  Adam's  sin:"  the  ordinary  Calvinistic 
doctrine  of  "immediate  imputation,"  which  offends  as  much 
against  the  moral  intuitions  as  the  idea  of  "  personal  participa- 
tion "  does  against  common  sense.  Dr.  SJiedd  adopts  the  view 
of  "personal  participation,"  and  against  the  doctrine  of  imme- 
diate imputation"  has  this  to  say:  "But  it  makes  an  infliction 
more  inexplicable,  rather  than  less  so,  to  say  that  it  is  visited 
upon  those  who  did  not  commit  the  sin  that  caused  the  death, 
but  were  fictitiously  and  gratuitously  regarded  as  if  they  had." 
("Commentary  on  Romans,"  p.  125.)  "The  reader  may  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Commentaries  of  these  two  writers  [Drs.  Hodge  and 
Shedd]  opposing  each  other,"  says  President  Dwight,  of  Yale 
(in  Meyer's  "Commentary  on  Eomans,"  p.  223),  "for  a  satisfac- 
tory refutation  of  the  views  of  both." 

Neither  does  Paul  teach  that  the  death  of  each  of  Adam's  de- 
scendants is  due  to  his  own  personal  transgression.  This  is  ex- 
cluded by  the  statement  and  argument  of  verse  14:  "Death 
reigned  from  Adam  until  Moses,  even  over  them  that  had  not 
sinned  after  the  likeness  of  Adam's  transgression."  Upon  this 
passage  Mr.  AYesley  comments :  "  Even  over  infants  who  had  never 
sinned,  as  Adam  did,  in  their  own  persons;  and  over  others,  who 
had  not,  like  him,  sinned  against  an  express  law."    So  Meyer: 

If  the  death  of  men  after  Adam  liad  been  caused  by  their  own  sin,  then  in  the 
case  of  all  those  who  liave  died  during  the  period  from  Adam  to  the  law,  the  sin 
which  they  have  committed  must  have  been  already  reckoned  to  them  as  trans- 
gression of  the  law,  just  as  Adam's  sin  was  the  transgression  of  the  j)ositive  divine 
command,  and  as  sucli  brought  upon  iiim  death ;  l>ut  this  is  inconceivable,  because 
the  law  Avas  not  in  existence.  In  this  Paul  leaves  out  of  consideration  the  Noa- 
chian  commands  (Gen.  ix.),  as  well  as  other  declarations  of  God  as  to  his  will 
given  before  the  law,  and  likewise  individual  punitive  judgments,  such  as  in  the 
case  of  Sodom,  just  because  he  has  only  the  strict  idea  of  real  and  formal  legisla- 


Pelagianism,  Augustinianism^  Arminianlsm. 


37 


tion  before  his  miiid,  and  this  suggests  to  him  simply  the  great  epochs  of  the  Par- 
adisaic and  Sinaitic  legislations  * 

Dr.  Wliedon  wholly  misappreliends  the  x\postle  on  this  point. 
He  understands  Paul  to  argue  from  the  presence  of  death  the 
presence  of  sin — which  is  correct — and,  further,  from  the  pres- 
ence of  sin  the  presence  of  law — which  is  incorrect.  (See  AYhe- 
don's  Commentary  in  loco.)  The  Apostle  seems  to  reason  thus: 
Death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses;  therefore  sin  covers  the 
same  interval;  but  evidently,  argues  the  Apostle,  it  is  not  the 
visitation  of  death  on  account  of  personal  sin,  committed  after 
the  likeness  of  Adam's  transgression,  for  before  the  law,  when 
there  was  no  positive  statute  with  annexed  penalty,  personal  sin 
was  not  imputed  in  the  exaction  of  the  penalty  of  death;  never- 
theless, since  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  sin  under  some 
form  was  present,  therefore — not  law  and  penalty,  as  Dr.  Whedon 
concludes — this  universal  death  in  the  patriarchal  age  was  be- 
cause sin  entered  into  the  world,  and,  like  death,  passed  unto 
all  men,  "  by  one  man  " — Adam.  Compare  Dr.  A.  Clarke  on 
Kom.  V.  13,  14. 

The  statement  of  verse  12,  "  for  that  all  sinned,"  is,  then,  the 
same  as  that  of  verses  18  and  19,  translated  by  Mr.  Wesley, 
"Therefore  by  one  offense  the  sentence  of  death  came  upon  all 
men  to  condemnation,"  and  "  By  the  disobedience  of  one  man 
many  were  constituted  sinners."  What  are  we  to  understand  by 
these  three  parallel  declarations?  By  a  series  of  exclusions  we 
have  already  greatly  narrowed  the  field  in  which  we  must  search 
for  an  answer.  (1)  "Personal  participation  "  of  Adam's  pos- 
terity in  his  sin  is  out  of  the  question — "  does  not  rise  even  to 
the  dignity  of  a  contradiction."  (2)  An  arbitrary  and  artificial 
transfer  of  responsibility  for  Adam's  act  to  his  unborn  posterity 
("immediate  imputation"),  however  cloaked  and  dignified  under 
the  epithet  of  "judicial,"  is  a  pure  fiction  nowhere  taught  in  the 
Bible,  and  is  besides  a  moral  monstrosity.  (3)  Death  for  per- 
sonal transgression  is  excluded  by  the  Apostle's  own  argument — 
verses  13,  14.  (4)  It  remains  that  inherited  depravity,  "original ) 
sin,"  viewed  as  the  uniform  source  of  all  evil,  which  Paul  through-| 
out  his  Epistles  habitually  designates  as  sin,  is  the  ground  of  di-l 
vine  condemnation.    Meyer  hesitates  to  recognize  this  sin  which! 


^  "  Commentary  on  Komans,"  p.  204. 


38  Orif/inal  or  Birth  Sin. 

entered  into  the  world  by  Adam  as  "original  sin"  in  the  strict 
theological  sense:  the  Apostle  perhaps  did  not  have  in  his  mind 
an  idea  exactly  coincident  with  the  subsequently  formulated 
dogma;  yet  Meyer  regards  this  sin  as  "the  determination  of  the 
conduct  in  antayonisni  to  God,  conceived,  however,  as  ^  force,  as  a 
real  power  working  and  manifesting  itself,  exercising  its  domin- 
ion, in  all  cases  of  concrete  sin.  This  moral  mode  of  being  in 
antagonism  to  God  became  existent  in  the  human  world  through 
the  fall  of  Adam,  produced  death,  and  spread  death  over  all. 
Thus  our  verse  itself  describes  the  aimpzia  as  a  real  objective 
poicer,  and  in  so  doing  admits  only  of  thifi  explanation."  *  This 
doctrine,  as  Meyer  says  in  another  place  (p.  208),  "necessarily 
presupposes  in  respect  to  Adam's  posterity  the  habitual  want  of 
justitia  orifjinalis  and  the  possession  of  concupiscence." 

Little  exception  can  be  taken  to  the  following  statements  of  Dr. 
Whedon : 

Adam,  separated  by  sin  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  a  naturally  disposed  sinjier 
and,  shut  from  the  tree  of  life,  a  natural  mortal;  and  so  by  the  law  of  descent  his 
posterity  are  naturally  disposed  sinners,  and  both  naturally  and  penally  mortal. 
.  .  .  .  "All  men  sin"— such  is  their  nature — when  their  probation  presents 
itself.  Such  being  their  normal  action,  such  must  be  their  permanent  nature. 
And  infants  are  of  the  same  nature,  they  needing  only  the  possible  conditions  for 
actual  sinning.  The  sentence  of  universal  death  must  stand,  therefore,  because  in 
the  divine  view  men  are  by  nature  universal  sinners,  t 

This  universal  sinfulness  of  human  nature,  therefore,  is  the 
ground  of  the  divine  displacency  and  the  condemnation  of  death: 
so  by  the  disobedience  of  one  man  many  were  constituted  sin- 
ners. ' 

Accepting  then  the  teachings  of  this  scripture,  without  seek-  • 
ing  to  avoid  or  abate  its  force,  how  has  Methodism  secured  for 
the  condemned  race  a  standing-place  before  God?  This  is  our 
final  inquiry.  Methodism  clearly  perceives  that  to  admit  that 
mankind  are  actually  born  into  the  world  justly  under  condem- 
nation is  to  grant  the  foundation  of  the  whole  Calvinistic  scheme. 
Granted  natal  desert  of  damnation,  there  can  be  no  valid  objec- 
tion to  the  sovereign  election  of  a  few  out  of  the  reprobate  mass, 
or  to  limited  atonement,  irresistible  grace,  and  final  perseverance 
to  secure  the  present  and  eternal  salvation  of  the  sovereignly 
predestinated  number—"  to  .the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace." 

*  Meyer,  "Commentary  on  Romans,"  p.  195.    Italics  Meyer's, 
t  "  Commentary  on  Romans,"  pp.  327,  328. 


Felagicoiianiy  Aiiyustiniamsm,  Arminianism. 


39 


As  Watsou  pertinently  says: 

It  is  an  easy  and  plausible  thing  to  say,  in  the  usual  loose  and  general  manner 
of  stating  the  sublapsarian  doctrine,  that  the  wlioje  race  having  fallen  in  Adam, 
and  become  justly  liable  to  eternal  death,  God  might,  without  any  impeachment 
of  Ills  justice,  in  the  exercise  of  his  sovereign  grace,  appoint  some  to  life  and  sal- 
vation by  Christ,  and  leave  the  others  to  their  deserved  punishment.^ 

Kepresentative  theologians  of  Methodism  from  the  beginning 
until  now,  from  Fletcher  to  Pope,  have  overthrown  this  funda- 
mental teaching  of  Calvinism  with  the  express  statement  of  the 
Scriptures,  setting  over  against  the  death-dealing  first  Adam  the 
life-giving  Second.  If  a  decree  of  condemnation  has  been  issued 
against  original  sin,  irresponsibly  derived  from  the  first  Adam, 
likewise  a  decree  of  justification  has  issued  from  the  same  court, 
whose  benefits  are  unconditionally  bestowed  through  the  Second 
Adam.  "Therefore,  as  by  the  offense  of  one  judgment  came 
upon  all  men  to  condemnation;  even  so  by  the  righteousness 
of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life. 
For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners,  so 
by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous."  (Rom. 
v.  18,  19.)  The  first  member  of  each  of  these  verses  is  fully 
balanced  and  reversed  by  the  second  member.  Had  not  the 
intervention  of  the  Second  Adam  been  foreseen,  universally 
making  and  constituting  righteous  all  who  were  made  and  consti- 
tuted sinners,  Adam  would  never  have  been  permitted  to  prop- 
agate his  species,  and  the  race  would  have  been  cut  off  in  its  sin- 
ning head. 

Let  us  now  hear  the  teachers  of  Methodism,  and  first  the 
saintly  Fletcher.  In  his  "Third  Check  to  Antinomianism " 
(Works,  Vol.  I.,  p.  161),  he  says: 

As  we  have  considered  three  of  the  walls  of  your  tower,  it  will  not  be  amiss  to 
cast  a  look  upon  the  fourth;  whicli  is  the  utterly  confounding  of  i\\Q  four  degrees 
that  make  up  a  glorified  saint's  eternal  justification: 

1.  That  which  passes  upon  all  infants  universally,  and  is  thus  described  by  St. 
Paul:  "As  by  the  ofl^enseof  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation; 
even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men,  unto  present 
justification  from  original  sin  and  future  justification  of  life,"  upon  their  repenting 
and  "believing  in  the  light  during  the  day  of  their  visitation."  In" consequence 
of  this  degree  of  justification,  we  may,  witliout  impeaching  the  veracity  of  God, 
say  to  every  cre^iture,  "(lod  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten 
son  to  reconcile  them  unto  himself,  not  imputing  to  them  "  original  sin  mito  eter- 
nal death,  and  blotting  out  tlieir  personal  transgressions  in  the  moment  "they 
believe  with  the  lieart  unto  righteousness." 


"  Institutes,"  p.  5S0. 


40 


Original  or  Birth  Sin. 


Fletcher  then  proceeds  to  his  account  of  the  other  three  "  de- 
grees "  of  justification,  namely:  Justification,  or  the  pardon  of 
actual  sins,  consequent  upon  believing;  "  justification  consequent 
upon  bringing  forth  the  fruit  of  a  lively  faith  "—the- justification 
by  works  of  St.  James;  and,  finally,  justification  at  the  day  of 
judgment.    He  concludes  (t).  162): 

All  these  degrees  of  justification  are  equally  merited  by  Christ.  We  do  noth- 
ing in  order  to  \.\\e  Jin^t,  because  it  finds  us  in  a  state  of  total  deatii.  Toward  the 
second  we  believe  by  the  power  freely  given  us  in  the  first,  and  by  the  additional 
help  of  Christ's  word  and  the  Spirit's  agency.  We  work  by  faith  in  order  to  the 
third.  And  we  continue  believing  in  Christ  and  working  together  with  God,  as 
we  have  opportunity,  in  order  to  i\\Q  fourth. 

The  preaching  distinctly  these  four  degrees  of  a  glorified  saint's  justification  is 
attended  with  peculiar  advantages.  The /ns/ justification  engages  the  sinner's  at- 
tention, encourages  his  hope,  and  draws  his  heart  by  love.  The  second  wounds  the 
self-righteous  Pharisee,  who  works  without  believing,  while  it  binds  up  the  heart 
of  the  returning  publican,  w])o  has  no  plea  but  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner! " 
The  third  detects  the  hypocrisy  and  blasts  the  vain  hopes  of  all  Antinomians, 
who,  instead  of  "showing  their  faith  by  their  works,  deny  in  works  the  Lord  that 
bought  them,  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame."  And  Avhile  the  fourth  makes  even 
II  "Felix  tremble,"  it  causes  believers  to  "pass  the  time  of  their  sojourning  here 
in  humble  fear"  and  cheerful  watchfulness. 

Though  all  these  degrees  of  justification  meet  in  glorified  saints,  we  oflfer  vio- 
lence to  Scripture  if  we  think,  Avith  Dr.  Crisp,  that  they  are  inseparable.  For  all 
the  wicked  who  "quench  the  eonvincimj  Spirit,"  and  are  finally  given  up  to  a  rep- 
robate mind,  fall  from  the  first,  as  well  as  Pharaoh.  All  who  "receive  the  seed 
among  thorns,"  all  who  "do  not  forgive  their  fellow-servants,"  all  who  "begin  in 
the  Spirit  and  end  in  the  flesh,"  and  all  "who  draw  back,"  and  become  sons  or 
daughters  of  "perdition,"  by  falling  from  the  third,  lose  the  second  as  Hyme- 
neus,  Philetus,  and  Demas.  A  nd  none  partake  of  the  fourth  but  those  who 
"  ])ear  fruit  unto  perfection,"  according  to  one  or  to  another  of  the  Divine  dispen- 
sations; "  some  producing  thirty-fold,"  like  heathens,  "  some  sixty-fold,"  like  Jews, 
and  "some  a  hundred-fold,"  like  Christians. 

From  the  whole  it  appears,  that  although  we  can  absolutely  do  nothing  to^vard 
our  first  justification,  yet  to  say  that  neither  faith  nor*works  are  required  in  order 
to  the  other  three,  is  one  of  the  boldest,  most  unscriptural,  and  most  dangerous 
assertions  in  the  world;  which  sets  aside  the  best  half  of  the  Scriptures,  and  lets 
gross  Antinomianism  come  in  full  tide  upon  the  Church. 

In  the  "Fourth  Check  to  Antinomianism,"  Letter  X.  to  Messrs. 
Eichard  and  Eowland  Hill  (AYorks,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  283-285  j,  Mr. 
Fletcher  resumes  the  subject  as  follows: 

In  the  Third  Check  (pp.  IGl  and  162),  to  make  my  readers  sensible  that  Cal- 
vinism has  confusion,  and  not  Scripture,  for  its  foundation,  I  made  a  scriptural 
distinction  between  the  four  degrees  that  constitute  a  saint's  eternal  justification, 
and  each  of  these  degrees  I  called  a  justification,  be.cause  I  thought  I  could  speak 


Pelagianism,  Aucjustinianism,  Arminianism.  41 

as  the  oracles  of  God,  without  exposing  the  truth  of  the  gospel  to  the  smiles  of 
Christian  wits. 

1.  From  Rom.  v.  18  I  proved  the  justification  of  infants:  "As  by  the  oflense 
of  Adam  (says  the  apostle)  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation,  even 
so  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  to  justification 
of  life."  In  support  of  this  justification,  which  comes  upon  all  men  in  their  in- 
fancy, I  now  advance  the  following  argutnents: 

1.  The  Scripture  tells  us  that  "  Christ  in  all  things  hath  the  pre-eminence." 
Rut  if  Adam  is  a  more  public  person,  a  more  general  representative  of  mankind, 
than  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  plain  that  in  this  grand  respect  Adam  hath  the  pre-em- 
inence over  Christ.  Now,  as  this  cannot  be,  as  Christ  is  at  least  equal  to  Adam, 
it  follows  that  as  Adam  brought  a  general  condemnation  and  a  universal  seed  of 
death  upon  all  infants,  so  Christ  brings  upon  them  a  general  justification,  and  a 
universal  seed  of  life. 

2.  I  never  yet  saw  a  Calvinist  who  denied  that  Christ  died  for  Adam.  Now,  if 
the  Redeemer  died  for  our  first  parent,  he  undoubtedly  expiated  the  original  sin, 
the  first  transgression  of  Adam.  And  if  Adam's  original  sin  was  atoned  for  and 
forgiven  to  him,  as  the  Calvinists,  I  think,  generally  grant,  does  it  not  follow 
that  altiiough  all  infants  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  yet  through  the  redemp- 
tion of  Christ  they  are  in  a  state  of  favor  or  justification?  For  how  could  God 
damn  to  all  eternity  any  of  Adam's  children  for  a  sin  which  Christ  expiated — a 
sin  which  was  forgiven  almost  six  thousand  years  ago  to  Adam,  who  committed  it 
in  person? 

3.  The  force  of  this  observation  would  strike  our  Calvinist  brethren,  if  they 
consider  that  we  were  not  less  in  Adam's  loins  when  God  gave  his  Son  to  Adam 
in  the  grand,  original  Gospel  promise,  than  when  Eve  prevailed  upon  him  to  eat 
of  the  forbidden  fruit.  As  all  in  him  were  included  in  the  covenant  of  perfect 
obedience  before  the  fall,  so  all  in  him  were  likewise  interested  in  the  covenant  of 
grace  and  mercy  after  the  fall.  And  we  have  full  as  much  reason  to  believe  that 
some  of  Adam's  children  never  fell  with  him  from  a  state  of  probation,  according  to 
the  old  covenant,  as  to  suppose  that  some  of  them  never  rose  with  him  to  a  state  of 
probation,  upon  the  terms  of  the  new  covenant,  whicli  stands  upon  better  promises. 

Thus,  if  we  all  received  an  imspeakable  injury  by  being  seminally  in  Adam 
Avhen  he  fell,  according  to  the  first  covenant,  we  all  received  also  an  unspeakable 
blessing  by  being  in  his  loins  when  God  spiritually  raised  him  up,  and  placed 
liim  upon  gospel  ground.  Nay,  the  blessing  which  we  have  in  Christ  is  far  su- 
perior to  the  curse  which  Adam  entailed  upon  us:  Ave  stand  our  trial  upon  much 
more  advantageous  terms  than  Adam  did  in  Paradise.  For  according  to  the  first 
covenant,  "judgment  was  by  one  offense  to  condemnation."  One  sin  sunk  the 
transgressor.  But  according  to  the  free  gift,  or  second  covenant,  provision  is  made 
in  Christ  for  repenting  of,  and  rising  from  "many  offenses  unto  justification." 
(Rom.  V.  16.) 

4.  Calvinists  are  now  ashamed  of  consigning  infants  to  the  torments  of  hell; 
they  begin  to  extend  their  election  to  them  all.  Even  the  translator  of  Zanchius 
beli2ves  that  all  children  who  die  in  their  infiincy  are  saved.  Now,  sir,  if  all 
children,  or  any  of  them,  are  saved,  they  are  unconditionally  justified  according 
to  our  plan;  for  they  cannot  be  "justified  by  faith,"  according  to  St.  Paul's  doc- 
trine (Rom.  V.  1),  as  it  is  granted  that  those  who  are  not  capable  of  understand- 


^2  Original  or  Birth  Sin, 


ing  are  not  capable  of  believing.  Nor  can  they  be  "justified  by  works,"  accord- 
ing to  St.  James's  doctrine,  chap.  ii.  24,  for  they  are  not  accountable  for  their 
works  who  do  not  know  good  from  evil  nor  their  right  hand  from  their  left 
Kor  can  they  be  justified  by  words,  according  to  our  Lord's  doctrine  (Matt  xii  37)' 
because  tlfey  cannot  yet  form  one  articulate  sound.  It  follows,  then  that  all  in' 
fants  must  be  damned,  or  justified  without  faith,  words,  or  works,  according  to  our 
hrst  distinction.  But  as  you  believe  they  are  saved,  the  first  degree  of  an  adult 
saint's  justification  is  not  less  founded  upon  your  own  sentiments  than  upon  reason 
and  scripture. 

Dr.  Wilbur  Fisk,  commenting  on  Rom.  v.  18,  says: 

Guilt  is  not  imputed  until,  by  a  voluntary  rejection  of  the  gospel,  man  makes 
the  depravity  of  his  nature  the  object  of  his  own  choice.  Hence,  although  ab- 
stractly considered,  this  depravity  is  destructive  to  the  possessors,  yet  through  the 
grace  of  the  gospel  all  are  born  free  from  condemnation. 

Dr.  AYhedon,  though  in  a  correspondence  with  the  writer  some- 
what inclined  to  depreciate  the  doctrine  here  set  forth,  uses  this 
language  ("  Commentary  on  Eomans,"  p.  330): 

From  Adam  the  continued  race  is,  by  the  law  of  natural  descent,  born  and  con- 
fctituted  sinners.  Yet  justification  by  Christ  overlies  the  condemnation  at  birth;  and 
even  when  forfeited  by  sin  may,  by  repentance  and  faith,  be  recovered  and  mature 
into  holiness  and  eternal  life. 

In  his  comment  on  Eph.  ii.  3,  after  a  protracted  discussion, 
Dr.  AVhedon  concedes:  "If,  however,  we  must  say  that  infants 
'sinned  in  Adam,'  let  us  be  consistent,  and  add,  *but  they  also 
became  justified  in  Christ.'"  Certainly:  that  is  the  Apostle's 
teaching,  and  "  beauty,  truth,  and  reason  are  the  outcome." 

Dr.  Miner  Raymond,  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  in  the 
Garrett  Biblical  Institute  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
employs  this  language: 

The  fact,  as  we  see  it,  is  that  the  race  came  into  existence  under  grace.  But 
for  redemption  the  race  had  become  extinct  in  the  first  pair,  and  the  posterity  of 
Adam  would  never  have  had  personal,  individual  existence.  Not  only  is  exist- 
ence secured  for  the  posterity  of  Adam  by  the  Second  Adam,  but  also  justification. 
From  whatever  of  the  displeasure  or  wrath  of  God,  or  condemnation  that  theoret- 
ically rested  upon  the  race,  because  of  corruption  or  guilt  accruing  from  the  first 
sin,  they  arc  justified  through  Christ.  (Rom.  v.  18.)  Not  only  does  man  come  to 
conscious  being,  sustaining  the  relation  of  a  justified,  pardoned  sinner,  but  as  such 
lie  is  entitled  to  and  actually  possesses  all  the  requisitesof  a  fair  probation.  AVhat- 
ever  influences  and  agencies  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  necessary  to  qualify  him  for 
the  exercise  of  free  moral  choices  are  graciously  vouchsafed  to  him.'^'' 

In  a  valuable  article  in  the  "  Wesley  Memorial  Volume,"  edited 
by  Dr.  J.  O.  A.  Clarke,  Dr.  Pope  gives  a  luminous,  though 


*  "Systematic  Theology,"  Vol.  H.,  pp.  84,  85. 


Pelagianism,  Augustin ianism,  Arminianism. 


43 


greatly  condensed,  epitome  of  Methodist  doctrine.  Our  discus- 
sion of  this  subject  may  well  include  the  following  comprehen- 
sive presentation  of  Methodist  teaching: 

The  sin  of  Adam  was  expiated  as  representing  the  sin  of  tlie  race  as  such,  or  of 
liuman  nature,  or  of  mankind:  a  realistic  conception  whicli  was  not  borrowed  from 
philosophic  realism,  and  which  no  nominalism  can  ever  really  dislodge  from  the 
New  Testament.  "Christ  gave  himself  as  the  Mediator  of  God  and  men,  a  ran-* 
som  for  all  before  any  existed  ;  and  this  oblation  before  the  foundation  of  the  world 
Avas  to  be  testified  in  due  time,  that  individual  sinners  might  know  themselves  to 
be  members  of  a  race  vicariously  saved  as  such."  This  free  paraphrase  of  St. 
Paul's  last  testimony  [in  1  Tim.  ii.  4-6]  does  not  overstrain  its  teaching,  that  the 
virtue  of  the  great  reconciliation  abolished  the  sentence  of  death  in  all  its  mean- 
ing, as  resting  upon  the  posterity  of  Adam.  In  this  sense  .it  was  absolutely  vica- 
rious; the  transaction  in  the  mind  and  purpose  of  the  most  Holy  Trinity  did  not 
take  our  presence  or  concurrence^only  our  sin,  into  account.  Therefore  the  Lamb 
slain  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was,  as  it  respects  the  race  of  Adam,  an 
absolutely  vicarious  sacrifice.  The  reconciliation  of  God  to  the  world — tlie  atone- 
ment proper — must  be  carried  up  to  the  awful  sanctuary  of  the  Divine  Trinitarian 
essence.  When  the  atonement  is  translated  into  time,  set  forth  upon  the  cross, 
and  administered  by  the  Spirit,  the  simple  and  purely  vicarious  idea  is  modified. 
.  .  .  With  these  modifications,  as  it  respects  the  individual  believer,  does 
Methodism  hold  fast  the  doctrine  of  a  universal  vicarious  satisfaction  for  the  race. 
But  marked  prominence  must  be  given  to  the  consistency  with  which  the  univer- 
sal benefit  of  the  atonement  has  been  carried  out  in  its  relation  to  original  sin  and 
the  estate  of  the  unregenerate  world  before  God.  Methodism  not  only  holds  that 
the  condemnation  of  the  original  sin  lias  been  reversed;  it  also  holds  that  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  source  of  all  good,  is  given  back  to  mankind  in  his  preliminary 
influences  as  the  Spirit  of  the  coming  Christ,  the  Desired  of  tlie  nations.*' 

The  foregoing  doctrine  is  twice  taught  in  the  Articles  of  Re- 
ligion as  revised  by  Mr.  AVesley.  Article  II.  asserts  that  Christ 
is  "a  sacrifice,  not  only  for  original  guilt,  but  also  for  actual  sins 
of  men."  And  Article  XX.  teaches  that  Christ  is  a  "  satisfaction 
for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  both  original  and  actual." 
In  connection  with  this  teaching  of  the  Methodist  Articles  it 
must  be  kept  in  mind  that  Mr.  Wesley  deliberately  omitted 

*■  "Wesley  Memorial  Volume,"  Art.  "  Methodist  Doctrine,"  by  Dr.  W.  B.  Pope, 
pp.  177,  178.  With  this  compare  Pope's  expanded  treatment  of  the  doctrine  of 
Original  Sin,  "Compendium,"  Vol.  IL,  pp.  47-86;  also  his  presentation  of  the 
"Finished  Atonement"  in  the  same  volume,  pp.  213-316.  On  p.  81  Pope  quotes 
from  Wesley  a  passage  which  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  in  his  works,  as  follows: 
"  That  by  the  oflTense  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  (all  born  into  the  world) 
to  condemnation  is  an  undoubted  truth,  and  aflfects  every  infant,  as  well  as  every 
adult  person.  But  it  is  equally  true  that  by  the  righteousness  of  One  the  free  gift 
came  upon  all  men  (all  born  into  the  world,  infants  and  adults)  unto  justification." 
— T. 


44  Original  or  Birth  Sin. 

from  the  Ninth  English  Article  the  words,  *'so  that  the  tlesh 
lusteth  always  contrary  to  the  Spirit,  and,  therefore,  in  every  per- 
son born  into  this  w^orld  it  deserves  God's  wrath  and  damnation,  ' 
etc.  If,  then,  Mr.  Wesley,  in  formulating  the  Confession  of  Amer- 
ican Methodism,  expresfely  declined  to  assert  that  original  sin 
"deserveth  God's  wrath  and  damnation"  for  every  person  at  the 
time  of  his  birth;  and  if  he  still  embodied  in  this  Methodist 
Creed  the  doctrine  that  Christ  is  a  sacrifice  for  original  sin  and 
guilt:  from  these  two  premises  the  conclusion  irresistibly  follows 
that  Mr.  Wesley  held,  and  intended  the  Confession  of  American 
Methodists  to  express,  that  Christ  made  a  universal  and  uncon- 
ditional atonement  for  original  sin.  Mr.  Wesley,  in  the  last  years 
of  his  life,  in  the  full  maturity  of  his  knowledge,  judgment,  and 
experience,  when  engaged  in  the  performance  of  the  important 
task  of  giving  a  confession  of  faith  to  a  new  Church,  as  an  Ar- 
minian  theologian  formulating  the  doctrine  of  an  Arminian 
Church,  denies  that  original  sin  "in  every  person  born  into  the 
world  deserveth  God's  wrath  and  damnation,"  and  this  because 
Christ  is  a  sacrifice  for  original  guilt.  Thus  is  the  dogma  of 
Christ's  unconditional  vicarious  satisfaction  for  original  sin 
deeply  set  in  the  fabric  of  Methodist  doctrine.] 


ft 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  ARMINIAN  DOCTRINE:  DEFENSE  AND  PROOF. 

In  the  foregoing  history  of  this  article,  and  the  errors  to  which 
it  is  opposed,  we  have  expounded  the  doctrine  which  it  pro- 
pounds. It  now  remains  to  make  a  few  additional  explanations 
and  to  advance  the  proof  of  this  important  doctrine. 

§1.  The  Phrase  "Original  Sin"  Explained  and  Defended. 

Exceptions  have  been  taken  to' the  phrase  "original  sin,"  as 
applied  to  this  subject;  but  with  no  very  good  reason.  Were 
we  indeed  called  upon  to  name  the  evil  in  question,  we  should 
not  perhaps  call  it  with  TertuUian,  vithim  onginis,  or  with  Augus- 
tin,  orlfjiiiale  peccatiini^  but  rather  peccatum  nciturale,  using  the 
word  natural,  as  Tertullian  says,  quodammodo,  in  a  certain  man- 
ner, namely,  to  designate  the  evil  that  has  become  man's  second 
nature;  and  not  proprie  nafurale — properly  natural— the  first  nat- 
ure of  man,  that  which  he  received  from  his  Creator.  This  dis- 
tinction meets  the  objection  of  those  who  cavil  at  the  use  of  the 
phrase  "  natural  depravity,"  *'  sin  of  our  nature,"  or  the  like.  The 
title  of  the  article  which  furnishes  a  synonym  for  "Original," 
namely,  "Birth  Sin,"  shows  that  "  Original  Sin  "  does  not  mean 
the  act  of  our  first  parents  in  eating  the  forbidden  fruit:  not  the 
act  itself,  of  course,  for  their  posterity  did  not  perform  that  act; 
nor  the  imputation  of  it,  though  in  a  certain  sense  that  act  is  im- 
puted to  them.  The  human  species  is  viewed  as  a  solidarity,  and 
it  is  represented  by  its  head,  commonly  called  its  "federal  head," 
because  the  covenant  of  life  and  death  was  made  with  him  for 
himself  and  posterity.  If  he  had  not  fallen,  he  would  have  propa- 
gated his  species  in  innocence  and  happiness,  and,  continuing  in 
that  state,  they  would  have  been  immortal,  either  on  earth  or  in 
another  sphere.  But  as  lie  fell,  his  posterity  would  have  per- 
ished in  him,  if  the  penalty  threatened  had  Jbeen  instantly  en- 
forced; but  as  a  gracious  reprieve  wa^  granted  through  the  re- 
demption of  Christ,  his  posterity,  though  inheriting  from  him  a 
depraved  nature,  share  with  him  in  all  the  blessings  of  the  new 

(45) 


46 


Original  or  Birth  Sin, 


covenant  administered  by  the  Second  Adam,  who  thus  restores 
•'the  ruins  of  the  first." 

§  2.  Imputation  Mediate,  not  Immediate. 

This  imputation  is  mediate,  not  i  in  mediate,  as  the  schoolmen 
^   .  speak.    Immediate  imputation  would  make  us  pers^^nally  resj^on- 
sible  for  Adam's  sin,  as  if  we  had  committed  the  act  ourselves. 
This  is  impious  and  absurd.    Mediate  imputation  implies  a  lia- 
bility to  death  spiritual,  temporal,  and  eternal,  in  consequence 
(  of  Adam's  sin,  which  would  not  have  been  personally  realized 
/  by  his  posterity,  who  would  have  died  seminally  in  him,  if  re- 
demption had  not  been  provided;  but  as  that  redemption  has 
been  provided  for  every  man,  though  every  man  is  liable  to  suf- 
fer all  these  consequences  of  the  fall,  yet  tbey  all  may  be  reversed 
or  overruled  for  good  in  the  case  of  every  man.    The  attainder 
of  the  treason  of  our  forefathers  is  set  aside  in  our  case  if  we 
"receive  the  atonement;"  and  the  temporal  evils  ending  in  the 
death  of  the  body  may  be  all  overruled  for  our  good,  through 
this  gracious  economy.    Thus,  while  Adam's  sin  makes  guilty 
all  his  sons,  none  of  them  have  any  occasion  to  complain  of  ttie 
injustice  of  this  imputation,  because  "  where  sin  abounded,  grace 
did  much  more  abound:  that  as  sin  hath  reigned  unto  death, 
even  so  mJght  grace  reign  through  righteousness  unto  eternal 
life  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."    (Rom.  v.  20,  21.) 

§o.  Negative  and  Positive  Definition  of  Original  Sin. 

The  article  however  ignores  the  word  imputation :  perhaps  be- 
cause of  its  ambiguity.  It  defines  original  sin,"  negatively  and 
postively.  Negatively,  it  does  not  consist  in  the  following  of 
Adam:  i)i  imitatione  Ada  mi.  This  we  have  seen,  as  the  article 
says,  is  "as  the  Pelagians  do  vainly  talk."  Original  or  birth  sin 
is  predicated  of  infants  who  are  incapable  of  committing  actual 
sin.  Positively,  "  it  is  the  corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man, 
that  naturally  is  engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam,  whereby 
man  is  very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness,  and  of  his  own 
nature  inclined  to  evil,  and  that  continually,"  In  the  Anglican 
Article  it  is  "the  fault  and  corruption:*'  vitium  et  depravatio,  the 
w^ord  vitium  being  borrowed  from  TertuUian.  It  seems  to  be  used 
as  a  synonym  of  deprnvntio,  "corruption,"  the  latter  word  defin- 
ing the  former,  and  the  form.er  the  latter,  the  more  certainly  to 
fix  the  sense.    But  our  English  word  "  fault "  is  generally  used,  in 


The  Arminian  Doctrine:  Defent^e  ami  Proof, 


47 


a  moral  sense,  to  express  our  actual  deviation  from  virtue,  or 
something  less  than  a  crime,  while  corruption  expresses  the  in- 
ward character;  the  latter  word  is  sufficient,  and  the  former  mav 
be  spared.  It  is  not  to  be  understood  of  any  essential  change 
wrought  in  the  substance  of  the  soul,  which  is  to  us  incompre- 
hensible; nor  of  the  positive  infusion  of  evil  into  the  soul;  but 
it  is  the  loss  of  original  righteousness,  and  the  incapacity  for  any 
good,  and  the  liability  to  all  evil  which  result  from  it.  Armin- 
ius  says,  "  We  think  that  this  absence  alone  of  original  right- 
eousness is  original  sin  itself;"  but  he  well  adds,  "since  it  alone 
is  sufficient  for  the  commission  and  production  of  every  actual 
sin  whatever."  This  makes  his  statement  agree  with  the  more 
precise  language  of  "Watson: 

Tliis  is  by  some  divines  called,  with  great  aptness,  "a  cfepravation  arisins^  from 
a  deprivation,'"  and  is  certainly  much  more  consonant  with  the  iScriptures  than  the 
opinion  of  the  infusion  of  evil  qualities  into  the  nature  of  man  hy  a  positive  cause 
or  direct  tainting  of  the  heart.  This  has  been,  indeed,  probably  an  opinion  in  the 
proper  sense,  with  few,  and  has  rather  been  collecte<l  from  the  strong  and  rhetor- 
ical expressions  under  which  the  moral  stnte  of  man  is  often  exhibited,  and,  on 
this  account,  has  been  attacked  as  a  part  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  original  innocence,  and  as  making  God  directly  the  author  of  sin. 

§4.  Original  Righteousness. 

AVhen  it  is  said  that  by  the  fall  we  are  very  far  gone  from 
original  righteousness,"  it  is  important  to  ascertain  what  is 
meant  by  original  righteousness. 

Hagenbach,  speaking  of  the  time  of  the  Eeformation,  says: 

During  the  present  period,  the  opinion  generally  prevailetl  among  Christians 
of  all  denominations  that  the  state  of  our  fii-st  parents  was  more  excellent,  both 
in  respect  to  body  and  soul,  prior  to  the  fall  than  after  it.  But  while  theologian?* 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  agreed  Avith  the  majority  of  the  scholastics  in  re- 
garding the  original  righteousness  of  man  as  a  donnm  fnijyeradditum,  Protestants 
(Lutherans  as  well  as  Calvlnists)  maintained  that  God  created  man  in  the  pos- 
session of  perfect  righteousness  and  holiness,  qualities  which,  together  with 
mortality,  belonged  to  his  original  nature.  Arniinians  and  Socinians  entertained 
less  exalted  opinions  concerning  the  original  ^^tate  of  man.  The  latter  averted 
that  the  image  of  God,  after  which  man  was  created,  has  reference  only  to  hw 
dominion  over  animals,  or  the  irrational  creation  in  general,  and  denied  tliat  im- 
mortality belonged  to  the  original  endowments  of  human  nature.* 

He  does  injustice  to  Arminians  by  associating  them  with  So- 
cinians in  this  opinion.    He  says: 

The  Arminian  symbols  (Confess.  Keuionslrnnt.  o.  o,  and  Apol.  Confes^s  p  60, 


History  of  DtHJtrincs,''  Vol.  II.,  i».  2ol  — T. 


48 


Original  or  BirtJi  Stih 


quoted  by  Winer,  p.  52)  agree  with  Calvin  in  insisting  on  the  original  freedom  of  the 
will,  but  reject  on  this  very  account  the  notion  of  a  primitive  state  of  perfect  ho- 
liness, because  if  there  had  been  such,  man  could  not  have  sinned.  Thus  Lim- 
borch,  "Theolog.  Christ,"  ii.  2-1,  5,  shows  that  that  state  of  innocence  of  our  first 
]»arents  to  which  so  much  importance  is  attached  must  have  been  united  with 
ignorance,  otherwise  they  would  have  known  that  serpents  cannot  speak,  and 
would  liave  been  led  to  suspect  something  wrong?  Limborch  admitted  that  man 
would  not  have  died  if  he  had  not  sinned,  but  he  objected  to  the  inference  which 
orthodox  theologians  drew  from  it,  viz.,  that  immortality  originally  belonged  to 
the  nature  of  man— he  thought  that  God  would  have  protected  him  against  death."- 

Now  it  matters  little  what  crude  notions  Limborch  may  have 
held;  they  are  not  Arminianism,  any  more  than  what  Luther 
Bays  fantastically  is  Lutheranism :  "  The  eye  of  the  first  man  sur- 
passed the  lynx  and  eagle  in  sharpness;  his  arm  was  stronger 
than  the  lion  and  the  bear;  he  went  among  the  strongest  ani- 
mals as  if  they  were  hounds."  Lideed,  Limborch  is  not  far 
wrong  if  there  was  a  literal  serpent  employed  in  the  temptation. 
Eve  certainly  could  not  have  been  a  very  wise  woman  to  let  a 
snake  deceive  her,  and  Adam  was  not  a  Newton  if  he  allowed 
liimself  to  be  a  party  in  such  a  business.  But  Limborch  was 
not  a  thorough  Arminian.  What  the  Bemonstrants  meant  by 
rejecting  the  opinion  that  Adam  was  in  a  state  of  perfect  holi- 
ness, differs  but  little  from  what  Bishop  Butler  sets  forth  in  the 
''Analogy,"  Part  L,  Chap,  v.,  in  regard  to  "  virtuous  habits  "  as  a 
guard  against  error  and  vice.    We  quote  a  passage  or  two: 

Mankind,  and  perhaps  nil  finite  creatures,  from  the  very  constitution  of  tlicir 
nature,  before  habits  of  virtue,  are  deficient,  and  in  danger  of  deviating  from 
what  is  riglit,  and  therefore  stand  in  need  of  virtuous  habits  for  a  security  against 
this  danger. 

Thus  the  principle  of  virtue,  improved  into  a  habit,  of  wliich  improvement 
we  are  thus  capable,  will  plainly  be,  in  proportion  to  the  strength  of  it,  a  secur- 
ity against  the  danger  which  finite  creatures  are  in,  from  the  very  nature  of  pro- 
pension  or  particular  affections.  .  .  .  And  thus  it  is  plainly  conceivable,  that 
creatures  without  blemish  as  they  come  out  of  the  hands  of  God  may  be  in  dan- 
ger of  going  wrong,  and  bo  may  stand  in  need  of  the  security  of  virtuous  habits, 
additional  to  the  moral  principle  wrought  into  their  natures  by  him.  That 
which  is  the  ground  of  their  danger,  or  their  want  of  security,  may  be  considered 
as  a  deficiency  in  them,  to  which  virtuous  habits  are  the  natural  supply.  And  as 
ihcy  are  naturally  capable  of  being  raised  and  improved  by  discipline,  it  may  be 
a  thing  fit  and  requisite  that  they  should  be  placed  in  circumstances  with  an  eye 
to  it — in  circumstances  peculiarly  fitted  to  be,  to  them,  a  state  of  discipline  for 
their  improvement  in  virtue. 


History  of  Doctrines,"  A'ol.  II.,  j).  £51.— T: 


The  Anninian  Doctrine:  Defense  and  Proof.  49 

These  views  of  this  profound  philosopher  and  divine,  we  be- 
lieve, are  generally  indorsed:  at  all  events,  few  would  be  dis- 
posed to  place  them  in  contrast  with  orthodoxy. 

The  truth  is,  Arminianism  is  far  more  decided  and  consistent 
in  regard  to  original  righteousness  than  any  of  the  Pelagian, 
patristic,  scholastic,  Eomish,  Lutheran,  Calvinistic,  Socinian,  or 
other  systems.  It  does  not  teach  that  Adam  and  Eve  were  ba- 
bies or  barbarians  before  the  fall,  but  little  wiser  and  better  than 
after  it;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  does  not  make  them  gods 
(Elohini)  equal  or  superior  to  angels  in  knowledge,  holiness, 
and  felicity.  It  does  not  make  their  virtue  consist  in  a  mere 
donum  siiperadditum,  a  gift  superadded  to  their  nature,  and  not 
essential  to  it,  as  the  Eomanists  speak,  or  mere  "ornaments" 
with  which  man  was  originally  decked,  as  others  express  it. 

AVatson  ("Institutes,"  II.,  xviii.,  pp.  403,  404)  says: 

Tliis  privation  is  not  fully  expressed  by  the  phrase,  "tlie  loss  of  original  right- 
eousness," unless  that  be  meant  to  include  in  it  the  only  source  of  righteousness  in 
even  the  first  man,  the  life  whicli  is  imparted  and  supplied  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
A  similar  want  of  explicitness  Ave  observe  also  in  Calvin's  own  statement  in  his 
generally  very  able  chapter  on  this  subject,  that  Adam  lost  "  the  ornaments  "  he  re- 
ceived from  his  Maker  for  us  as  well  as  for  himself;  unless  we  understand  by  these 
original  ornaments"  and  "endowments"  of  human  nature  in  him,  the  principle 
also,  as  above  stated,  from  which  they  all  flowed;  and  which,  being  forfeited, 
could  no  longer  be  imparted  in  the  uxnj  of  nature.  For  when  the  Spirit  was  re- 
stored to  Adam,  being  pardoned,  it  was  by  grace  and  favor;  and  he  could  not 
impart  it  by  natural  descent  to  his  posterity,  though  born  of  hina  when  in  a 
state  of  acceptance  with  God,  since  these  influences  are  the  gifts  of  God,  which 
are  imparted  not  by  the  first  but  by  the  second  Adam:  not  by  nature,  but  by  a 
free  gift  to  sinful  and  guilty  man,  the  law  being  irreversible,  "  that  which  is  born 
of  the  flesh  is  flesh."  Arminius  has  more  forcibly  and  explicitly  expressed  that 
privation  of  which  we  speak,  by  the  forfeiture  "of  the  gift  of  tlie  Holy  Spirit"  by 
Adam,  for  himself  and  his  descendants,  and  the  loss  of  original  righteousness  as 
the  consequence.  This  I  take  to  be  at  once  a  simple  and  a  scriptural  view  of  the 
case. 

It  truly  is;  and  Calvin  sa,ys  as  much  in  his  "Institutes"  (II.,  i. 
5.  10).    [See  the  quotation  from  Calvin  §  5,  p.  28.] 

§  5.  The  Image  of  God. 

Little  exception,  if  any,  is  to  be  taken  to  Calvin's  view  of  the 
image  and  likeness  of  God,  in  which  man  was  created,  and  which 
was  forfeited  by  the  fall.  (See  Book  I.,  xv.  3,  4).  He  censures 
Osiander's  notion  that  the  image  of  God  extends  promiscuously 
to  the  body  as  well  as  the  soul,  as  the  Word  would  have  become 
4 


50 


Origuial  or  Birth  Sin. 


man  if  Adam  had  not  fallen;  and  so  Adam  was  formed  after  the 
image  and  likeness  of  Christ's  humanity!  He  discards  also  the 
refinement  of  those  who  make  "image"  refer  to  the  substance 
of  the  soul,  and  "  likeness  "  to  its  qualities,  since  the  words  are 
synonymous,  and  both  are  used  according  to  the  Hebrew  style 
of  explicitness  and  emphasis,  as  "image,"  without  the  word 
"  likeness,"  is  afterward  used  to  express  the  same  idea.  He  also 
repudiates  "that  speculation  of  Augustin,  that  the  soul  is  a  mir- 
ror of  the  Trinity,  because  it  contains  understanding,  will,  and 
memory."    He  properly  adds: 

Nor  is  there  any  probability  in  tlie  opinion  wliicli  places  the  similitude  of  God 
in  the  dominion  committed  to  man;  as  though  he  resembled  God  only  in  this 
character,  that  he  was  constituted  heir  and  possessor  of  all  things,  whereas  it  must 
be  properly  sought  in  him,  not  ivithout  him — it  is  an  internal  excellence  of  the  soul. 

That  is  true;  nevertheless,  man's  dominion  over  the  lower  cre- 
ation is  a  likeness  of  the  divine  sovereignty,  and  is  the  natural 
and  divinely  appointed  consequence  of  that  "internal  excellence 
of  the  soul"  in  which  the  image  of  God  properly  consists. 
Hence  the  association  of  the  one  with  the  other.  {Cf.  Gen.  i.  26- 
28;  ix.  1-G). 

We  Avould  not  altogether  reject  the  speculation  of  Calvin 
(Book  I.,  XV.  3): 

For  though  the  glory  of  God  is  displayed  in  man's  external  form,  yet  there  is 
no  doubt  that  the  proper  seat  of  his  image  is  in  the  soul.  I  admit  that  external 
form,  as  it  distinguishes  us  from  brutes,  also  exalts  us  more  nearly  to  God;  nor 
will  I  too  vehemently  contend  with  any  one  who  would  understand  by  theJraage 
of  God  that 

While  the  mute  creation  downward  hend 

Their  sight,  and  to  their  earthly  mother  tend, 

Man  looks  aloft,  and  with  created  eyes 

Beholds  his  own  hereditary  skies.  — Ovid,  Met.  i, 

only  let  it  be  decided  that  the  image  of  God  which  appears,  or  sparkles  in  these 
external  characters,  is  spiritual. 

Further  than  this  we  dare  not  go,  lest  we  broach  anthropo- 
morphism. 

What  then  is  the  image  of  God?  It  is  twofold,  (1)  natural  and 
(2)  moral. 

1.  The  natural  image  of  God  consists  in  sinritnality^  in  which 
inhere  intellect,  sensibility,  and  will;  hence  God  is  called  "the 
Father  of  spirits"  (Heb.  xii.  9);  and  the  apostle  says  as  such  we, 
his  "offspring,"  ought  not  to  think  he  can  be  represented  by 
statues  and  the  like.   The  only  image  of  God  is  spiritual :  Christ 


The  Arminian  Doctrine:  Defense  and  Proof,  51 

in  the  highest  sense — "  who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God  " 
—and  we  in  a  subordinate  sense;  but  incalculably  above  what 
may  be  called  immateriality  in  the  lower  creatures.  (Col.  i.  15; 
Heb.  i.  3;  ii.  6-9;  Ps.  viii.  4,  8;  Acts  xvii.  28,  29.) 

The  natural  image  of  God  consists  also  in  immortality.  Thus 
Wisdom  ii.  23,  24  :  "  For  God  created  man  to  be  immortal,  and 
made  him  to  be  an  image  of  his  own  eternity.  Nevertheless, 
through  envy  of  the  devil  came  death  into  the  world;  and  they 
that  do  hold  of  his  side  do  find  it."  This,  of  course,  has  no  ref- 
erence to  the  death  of  plants  and  animals;  nor  do  the  Scriptures 
say  any  thing,  or  philosophy  any  thing  of  consequence,  concern- 
ing natural  immortality  as  resulting  from  an  immaterial,  un- 
compounded  substance;  for  though  Adam  possessed  a  spiritual, 
immaterial  nature,  yet  he  possessed  also  a  physical,  material  nat- 
ure, which,  for  all  that  we  can  see,  would  have  been  subject  to  the 
same  law  of  death  as  that  under  which  plants  and  animals  were 
placed,  but  for  the  supernatural  endowment  of  immortality.  That 
this  is  a  part  of  the  natural  imag3  of  God,  might  be  inferred  from 
the  law  concerning  murder:  "  Whoso  slieddetli  man's  blood,  by 
man  shall  his  blood  be  shed;  for  in  the  imnge  of  God  made  he 
man."    (Gen.  ix.  6.)    Death  despoils  that  image. 

2.  But  the  natural  image  of  God,  in  this  discussion,  is  only  to  be 
considered  as  the  basis  of  the  moral  image:  the  former  is  that 
in  which  the  latter  inheres,  as  we  say  the  natural  perfections 
of  God  are  those  in  which  his  moral  perfections  inhere.  But 
for  his  spiritual  and  immortal  nature,  man  would  be  incapable 
of  possessing  and  developing  those  qualities  which  constitute 
the  moral  image  of  God.  These  qualities  are  set  forth  explic- 
itly by  the  apostle:  "Lie  not  one  to  another,  seeing  that  ye 
have  put  off  the  old  man  with  his  deeds,  and  have  put  on  the 
new  man,  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of 
him  that  created  him."  (Col.  iii.  9,  10.)  He  then  proceeds  to 
exhort  them  therefore  to  put  on  all  moral  virtues,  "and  above 
all  charity,"  or  love,  "  which  is  the  bond  of  perfectness."  So 
more  explicitly  in  Eph.  iv.  22-24:  "  Put  otf  the  old  man,  which 
is  corrupt  according  to  the  deceitful  lusts;  and  be  renewed  in 
the  spirit  of  your  mind;  and  that  ye  put  on  the  new  man,  which 
after  God  is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness."  This 
agrees  precisely  with  Eccl.  vii.  29:  "God  hath  made  man  up- 
right; but  they  have  sought  out  many  inventions."  Edwards 


Original  or  Birth  Sin. 


says  ^'jashiir,  upright,  is  used  at  least  eighty  times  in  the  sense 
of  true  virtue;  it  is  tiius  constantly  used  in  Solomon's  writings, 
and  it  is  beyond  all  controversy  that  he  uses  it  in  this  i)lace 
to  signify  moral  rectitude,  or  a  character  of  real  virtue  and  in- 
tegrity. For  the  wise  man  is  speaking  of  persons  with  respect 
to  their  moral  character,  inquiring  into  the  corruption  and  de- 
pravity of  mankind,  and  he  here  declares  he  had  not  found  one 
among  a  thousand  of  the  right  stamp,  truly  and  thoroughly  virt- 
uous and  upright — which  appeared  a  strange  thing!  But  in  this 
text  he  clears  God,  and  lays  the  blame  on  man — man  was  not 
made  thus  at  first.  He  Avas  made  of  the  right  stamp,  altogether 
good  in  his  kind,  truly  and  thoroughly  virtuous,  as  he  ought  to 
be;  'but  they  have  sought  out  many  inventions,'  which  last  ex- 
pression signifies  things  sinful,  or  morally  evil." 

When  it  is  said  that  man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God  in 
regard  to  knowledge,  it  does  not  mean  simply  the  capacity  of  ac- 
quiring information:  this  belongs  essentially  to  a  spiritual  nat- 
ure, as  we  have  seen.  The  mind  of  Adam  was  not  a  tabula. rasa 
a  blank  parchment  on  v/hich  things  might  be  written.  Adam 
was  not  a  big  baby,  nor  a  savage.  His  mind  was  well  stored 
with  "the  knowledge  fit  for  man  to  know."  He  had  ideas,  and 
language  to  express  them.  But  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that 
he  was  like  the  Elohim,  either  God  or  angels,  "to  know  good 
and  evil; "  he  was  not  omniscient  nor  infallible.  Angels  do  not 
know  every  thing:  they  desire  to  look  into  the  mysteries  of  re- 
demption, and  it  is  nowhere  said  that  they  make  no  mistakes  in 
their  speculations.  They  are  finite  creatures,  and  so  were  our 
first  parents.  Adam's  knowledge  w^as  not  encyclopedic,,  nor 
was  it  all  intuitional.  He  was  endowed  with  a  sufficient  capital, 
if  we  may  so  speak,  to  give  him  a  start  in  the  world;  and  as  he 
was  to  "  dress  the  garden  and  keep  it,"  so  he  was  to  cultivate 
his  own  powers,  develop  them  by  study  and  application,  and 
thus  indefinitely  increase  his  stock  of  knowledge.  Eternal  pro- 
gression is  the  law  of  all  finite  intelligences,  either  unfallen  or 
redeemed,  as  infinite  possession  is  the  exclusive  and  incommuni- 
cable property  of  the  infinite  Jehovah.  We  suppose  that  when 
they  were  created  there  were  trees  in  Paradise  of  a  large  size, 
the  circles  of  which,  if  they  had  any,  would  indicate  the  growth 
of  a  hundred  years,  and  yet  they  were  but  just  created,  with 
roots,  and  heart,  and  sap,  and  bark,  and  boughs  and  leaves. 


The  Arminian  Doctrine:  Defense  and  Proof. 


53 


and  Howers,  and  fruit.  These  were  their  original  endowments 
by  "  special  creation,"  but  their  after-growth  and  development 
was  by  the  ordinary  processes  of  nature  and  cultivation,  involv- 
ing soil,  and  air,  and  heat,  and  moisture,  and  horticultural  at- 
tention. So  with  man:  Jie  was  "a  special  creation,"  and  as  such 
had  peculiar  endowments— in  one  sense,  natural;  in  another 
sense,  supernatural;  but  his  subsequent  development  depended 
upon  the  use  which  he  made  of  his  faculties  and  endowments,' 
and  the  means  and  facilities  of  improvement  which  were  placed 
within  his  reach. 

So  of  "righteousness  and  true  holiness."  His  heart  was  the 
temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  the  source  of  all  the  moral  ex- 
cellence there  is  in  the  universe.  There  was  in  man  no  principle 
of  evil,  no  bias  toward  evil;  but  the  contrary — a  principle  of  good- 
ness, "a  bias  toward  goodness.  The  Holy  Spirit  presiding  over 
every  thought,  feeling,  volition,  and  action,  all  was  holy.  Yet  all 
was  man's  own  property,  because  man  voluntarily  concurred  with 
the  Holy  Spirit's  influence  and  agency.  He  was  made  "  sufficient 
to  have  stood,  yet  free  to  fall."  Whatever  influence  was  exerted 
upon  man's  spiritual  nature  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  was  not  irre- 
sistible, as  all  admit.    The  proof  is  patent:  man  fell. 

§  6.  The  Nature  of  Virtue  and  Sin. 

There  need  be  no  controversy  on  the  subject  of  virtue  and  sin. . 
Those  who  choose  to  restrict  those  terms  to  voluntary  acts  may 
do  so,  and  we  shall  not  contend  with  them.  Of  course,  in  this 
sense,  man  had  neither  virtue  nor  sin  when  he  was  created.  God 
did  not  endow  him  with  vohintari/  acts;  no  one  can  imagine  any 
thing  so  unphilosophical.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  choose  to  fol- 
low the  Scriptures,  and  call  the  original  rectitude  of  our  nature, 
before  any  voluntary  action,  "righteousness  and  true  holiness;" 
and  the  depravity  of  our  nature,  apart  from  voluntary  action,  sin, 
let  no  man  take  exception  to  it,  as  that  might  lead  to  an  un- 
profitable logomachy.  When  John  says,  "  Sin  is  the  transgres- 
sion of  the  law"  (1  John  iii.  4 — y.ai  ^  afiapria  Urh  ij  dyoiua^  "and 
sin  is  lawlessness  "),  the  Catechism  cannot  be  far  wrong  in  un- 
derstanding him  thus:  "  Sin  is  any  want  of  conformity  to,  or  trans- 
gression of,  the  law  of  God."  Thus  the  principle  out  of  which 
the  action  springs  is  sinful,  as  well  as  the  action  itself.  The 
unregenerate  man  is  a  sinner  all  the  time;  that  is  his  character 


54  Original  or  Birth  Sin. 

wlien  asleep  or  at  work,  as  well  as  when  he  is  in  the  very  act  of 
transgressing.  All  jurisprudence  is  based  on  this.  Thus  Paul 
in  his  profound  analysis  of  an  unregenerate  but  awakened  man, 
whom  he  personates,  speaks  of  sin  as  duelling  in  liimy  as  well  as 
wrought  by  him;  indeed,  he  traces  all  actual  sin  to  indwelling 
sin  as  its  cause.  "  For  I  know  that  in  me  (that  is  in  my  flesh) 
dwelleth  no  good  thing:  for  to  will  is  present  with  me;  but  how 
to  perform  that  which  is  good  I  find  not.  For  the  good  that  I 
would,  I  do  not:  but  the  evil  which  I  would  not,  that  I  do.  Now 
if  1  do  that  I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that 
dwelleth  in  me."  Read  the  whole  of  Rom.  vii.  This  chapter 
settles  the  question.  The  next  chapter  tells  us  what  he  means 
by  the  "  flesh,"  namely,  fallen,  corrupt  nature :  "  For  they  that  are 
after  the  flesh  do  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh;  but  they  that  are 
after  the  Spirit,  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  For  to  be  carnally 
minded  is  death ;  but  to  be  spiritually  minded  is  life  and  peace. 
Because  the  carnal  mind  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God, 
neither  indeed  can  be.  So  then  they  that  are  in  the  flesh  can- 
not please  God."  (Rom.  viii.  5-9.)  But  this  is  the  current  mean- 
ing, though  not  of  course  the  exclusive  meaning,  of  (Td()'^,  flesL, 
in  Paul's  writings.  {Cf.  John  iii.  6.)  It  is  not  worth  while  to 
contend  about  the  use  of  a  word,  provided  we  agree  in  the  thing. 
But  the  Church  of  England,  with  which  we  harmonize  on  this 
point,  differs  in  regard  to  the  thing  itself  from  the  Church  of 
Rome.  The  Council  of  Trent  holds  "  that  by  the  grace  of  bap- 
tism the  guilt  of  original  sin  is  remitted,  and  that  all  is  removed 
which  hath  the  true  and  proper  nature  of  sin ; "  and  though  the 
concupiscence  remaining  is  called  by  the  apostle  sin,  the  Council 
declared  that  it  is  not  true  and  proper  sin,  but  is  so  termed  be- 
cause it  arises  from  sin  and  inclines  to  it.  On  the  contrary,  the 
Anglican  Article  says,  "Although  there  is  no  condemnation  for 
those  that  believe  and  are  baptized — renatis — yet  the  apostle  doth 
confess  that  concupiscence  and  lust  hath  of  itself  the  nature  of 
sin."  We  abide  by  the  apostle.  There  is  actual  sin  to  be  for- 
given by  pardoning  mercy,  and  indwelling  sin  to  be  removed  by 
sanctifying  grace. 

§  7.  No  Semi-Pelagianism  in  the  Article. 

The  qualifying  words,  "  vert)  far  gone  from  original  righteous- 
ness," are  thought  by  some  Anglican  divines  to  favor  Semi-Pe- 
lagianism, as  though  they  did  not  express  a  total  defection  from 


TJie  Arminian  Doctrine:  Defense  and  Proof. 


00 


original  righteousness.  But  the  Latin  copy  of  the  article,  which 
is  equally  authentic  with  the  English,  has  qurun  lonrjissiute  disfet 
— "which,"  says  Watson,  *'is  as  strong  an  expression  as  that 
language  can  furnish,"  and  "fixes  the  sense  of  the  compilers  on 
this  point,  and  takes  away  the  argument  which  rests  on  the  al- 
leged equivocalness  of  the  English  version."  Indeed,  there  is 
no  equivocalness  in  either.  If  it  had  been  simply  said,  man  is 
gone  from  original  righteousness,"  that  would  express  his  en- 
tire deprivation  of  goodness,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  an  entire  dep- 
ravation of  nature  would  be  the  result.  But  it  is  said  man  is 
far  (jone,  "very  far  gone,  from  original  righteousness:"  what 
follows  is  the  certain  consequence — "and  is  or  his  own  nature  in- 
clined to  evil;"  to  which  our  article  adds,  as  it  omits  the  latter 
part  of  the  Ninth  Article,  "and  that  continually."  Xo  lauguage 
could  set  forth  in  stronger  and  more  explicit  terms  the  inherit- 
ed, inherent,  total  depravity  of  our  nature  and  its  incurableness 
apart  from  divine  grace,  for,  as  the  General  Confession  ex- 
presses it,  "there  is  no  health  in  us,"  that  is,  no  saving  power. 
We  cannot  extricate  ourselves  from  this  miserable  condition. 
In  his  early  writings  Augustin  calls  it  difficultas  boni.  But  says 
Ullmann: 

We  recognize  in  human  nature  a  prevailing  inclination  to  sin.  Neither  are 
Ave  able  to  agree  to  the  view  that  the  result  of  this  inclination  is  only  that  we 
labor  under  a  difficulty  of  good,  but  possess  also  a  freedom  capable  in  each  sepa- 
rate instance  of  deciding  in  favor  of  that  ■which  is  right,  and  thus  rendering  a 
perfectly  sinless  development  conceivable.  For  as  soon  as  the  moral  power  is  re- 
garded as  one  which  has  to  contend  with  inward  difficulties,  a  perfectly  pure 
beginning  is  no  longer,  and  an  internal  discord  is  assumed  irreconcilable  with 
that  sinless  development  which  we  attribute  to  the  Lord  Jesus. 

Thus  the  Fifteenth  Anglican  Article,  "Of  Christ  Alone  With- 
out Sin":  "Christ  in  the  truth  of  our  nature  was  made  like  unto 
us — sin  only  except — but  if  we  say  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive 
ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us."  But,  thank  God,  in  the 
case  of  all  who  reject  not  the  redemption  offered  by  Christ  Je- 
sus, 

The  second  Adam  shall  restore 
The  ruins  of  the  iirst. 

§8.  Proofs  of  the  Doctrine  from  Personal  Experience. 

It  might  be  supposed  that  a  doctrine  so  important,  so  funda- 
mental, so  appalling,  is  well  fortified  by  proofs,  or  no  one  could 
receive  it.    Alas!  the  proofs  are  only  too  numerous. 


56 


Original  or  Birth  Sin. 


There  are  proofs  from  persoiial  experience.  Every  man  lias 
them  in  his  own  heart.  The  sin  of  every  man  is  there  written, 
as  Avith  the  point  of  a  diamond.  Every  man  knows  that  by  nat- 
ure "his  heart  is  not  right  in  the  sight  of  God:"  that  it  is 
"deceitful  above  all  things,  and  desperately  wicked."  (Jer. 
xvii.  1,  9.)  You  need  not  go  to  the  confessions  of  Paul  personat- 
ing the  aw^akened  but  unregenerate  sinner  (Eom.  vii.);  nor  to 
the  confessions  of  Augustin,  whose  experience  corroborated 
his  doctrine  in  regard  to  this  point;  nor  to  the  confessions  of 
Lather,  or  of  Wesley,  or  of  any  others,  who  have  laid  bare,  as  far 
as  they  could,  the  hidden  evils  which  they  discovered  in  them- 
selves: an  honest  and  pi"ayerful  introspection  wall  make  any  man 
adopt  the  penitential  confession  of  David,  and  offer  his  pray^: 
*'  Behold,  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother 
conceive  me.  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God,  and  renew  a 
right  spirit  within  me."    (Ps.  li.) 

§9.  Proofs  from  Observation. 

There  are  proofs  from  observation.  Read  history,  sacred  and 
profane:  what  is  it  but  a  revolting  record  of  man's  depravity? 
Look  abroad  upon  the  face  of  society,  and  what  do  ygu  see  but 
sin  in  high  places  and  in  low?  sin  everywhere?  sin  of  every  sort? 
sin  in  childhood,  adolescence,  riper  age,  old  age,  among  all 
sorts  and  conditions  of  men?  It  was  not  only  in  the  Psalmist's 
time  and  place,  but  in  every  time  and  place.  "  The  Lord  looked 
down  from  heaven  upon  the  children  of  men,  to  see  if  there 
were  any  that  did  understand  and  seek  God.  They  are  all  gone 
aside,  they  are  all  together  become  filthy:  there  is  none  that  do- 
eth  good,  no,  not  one."  (Ps.  xiv. ;  Eom.  iii.)  Granted  that  this 
describes  actual  sin — it  does;  but  then  its  universality  shows 
that  it  has  a  common  origin:  such  a  formidable  stream  must  have 
a  full  and  ever-flowdng  fountain.  What  that  is  we  find  in  the  ac- 
count of  the  antediluvian  world:  "And  God  saw  that  the  wick- 
edness of  man  was  great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every  imagination 
of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually."  (Gen. 
vi.  5.)  It  was  just  the  same  in  our  Lord's  time.  He  says, 
"  That  which  cometh  out  of  the  man,  that  defileth  the  man.  For 
from  within,  out  of  the  heart  of  man,  proceed  evil  thoughts,  adul- 
teries, fornications,  murders,  thefts,  covetousness,  wickedness, 
deceit,  lasciviousness,  an  evil  eye,  blasphemy,  pride,  foolishness: 
all  these  evil  things  come  from  within,  and  defile  the  man." 


The  Arminimi  Doctrine:  Defense  and  Proof, 


57 


(Mark  vii.  20-23.)  "A  corrupt  tree  bringeth  forth  evil  fruit- 
neither  can  a  corrupt  tree  bring  forth  good  fruit."  (Matt.  vii. 
17, 18.)  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean?  Not 
one."  (Job  xiv.  4.)  Surely  all  observation  will  justify  the  lan- 
guage of  Solomon,  "  There  is  not  a  just  man  upon  earth  that  do- 
eth  good,  and  sinneth  not"  (Eccl.  vii.  20),  and  that  of  John, 
"  If  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the 
truth  is  not  in  us.  If  we  say  that  we  have  not  sinned,  we  make 
him  a  liar,  and  his  word  is  not  in  us."  (1  John  i.  8, 10.)  But 
why  call  up  the  observation  and  testimony  of  others:  prophets, 
apostles,  Christ,  philosophers,  poets,  legislators,  moralists,  trav- 
elers, and  others?  Open  your  eyes:  look  around  you:  the  sight 
is  appalling,  overwhelming.  In  spite  of  all  that  has  been  done 
by  God  and  man  to  stem  the  current,  it  sweeps  on  with  resistless 
force.  Laws,  education,  civilization,  philosophy,  nay  revelation 
itself,  all  seem  powerless  to  arrest  the  fearful  epidemic,  so  wide- 
spread, so  violent,  so  chronic,  so  fatal!  The  perusal  of  Dr. 
Dwiglit's  Sermons  (xxix.-xxxiii.),  of  Fletcher's  Appeal,  and  of 
other  works  of  this  class,  not  only  leaves  no  ground  to  question 
the  universal  and  total  depravity  of  man,  but  fills  the  soul  with 
terror  and  d^ismay:  "a  horror  of  great  darkness"  falls  upon  the 
serious  spectator  of  the  sin  and  misery  of  our  race,  and  he  is 
ready  to  exclaim,  "  It  Avere  better  for  man  that  he  had  never 
been  born."  It  Avill  drive  him  to  insanity,  unless  he  turns  away 
from  the  revolting  scene,  and  looks  to  the  gracious  remedy  that 
has  been  provided  for  all  our  race.  This  will  explain  the 
seeming  contradiction  to  the  sweeping  charges  of  the  Script- 
ures, of  universal  depravity,  as  they  do  speak  of  the  righteous, 
and  our  own  observation  assures  us  that  there  are  such,  and 
have  been  such  in  every  age,  and  we  have  the  assurance  that 
their  number  will  be  multiplied  as  the  ages  roll  along.  .  Half 
the  human  family  die  in  childhood,  and  all  these  are  saved  for- 
ever. In  every  nation  are  those  who,  according  to  their  light, 
fear  God  and  work  righteousness:  all  these  are  saved  for- 
ever. Those  who  have  the  gospel,  and  comply  with  its  re- 
quirements— and  there  are  millions  of  such  in  every  age — all 
these  are  saved  forever.  In  the  latter-day  glory  of  the  Church 
their  numbers  will  be  vastly  increased:  so  that  where  sin  hath 
abounded,  grace  doth  much  more  abound,  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ. 


58 


Original  or  Birth  Sin, 


In  Him  tlie  tribes  of  Adam  boast 
More  blessings  than  their  father  lost. 

In  a  similar  way  the  objection  to  the  entireness  of  inherent 
and  inherited  depravity  may  be  met.  We  are  asked  if  among 
heathen  nations,  and  among  the  unregenerate  around  us,  there 
is  not  much  good,  as  well  as  evil.  AVe  answer,  Yes,  even  among 
those  who  will  be  finally  lost.  Pelagians  urge  it  as  an  objection 
to  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity.  Calvinists  themselves  be- 
come Semi-Pelagians  at  this  point.  If  only  an  elect  number, 
chosdn  from  the  common  mass  of  sinners,  are  redeemed  by 
Christ,  then  none  others  have  any  part  or  lot  in  the  matter. 
Their  virtues  are  self-originated,  and,  though  they  cannot  be  ig- 
nored, yet  they  are  branded  as  "  splendid  vices,"  as  by  Augus- 
tin,  and  thus  that  Father  becomes  "bed-fellow"  with  his  great 
opponent,  Pelagius,  since  both  attribute  these  virtues  to  unassist- 
ed human  nature,  though  the  orthodox  Father  stigmatizes  them 
as  disguised  vices,  while  his  heterodox  opponent  calls  them  vir- 
tues, real  virtues,  as  indeed  they  are.  On  the  Arminian,  which 
is  the  scriptural,  ground  there  is  no  difficulty  whatever.  All 
men  are  totally  depraved:  utterly  unable,  by  their  unassisted 
powers,  to  think,  speak,  or  do  aught  that  is  good.  But  through 
the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  tasted  death  for 
every  man,  preventing  grace  is  given  to  every  man,  given  to 
every  human  being  that  draws  the  breath  of  life;  and  this  so 
far  modifies  and  antagonizes  the  depravity  of  our  nature,  that 
there  are  developed  in  tender  infancy  a  thousand  pleasing  traits, 
and  in  every  stage  of  subsequent  life,  various  virtues,  which, 
however  imperfect,  give  a  charm  to  individuals  and  society,  else 
the  world  would  be  a  pandemohium,  instead  of  the  purgatory 
which  it  has  so  long  been,  and  the  paradise  which  we  hope  it 
soon  will  be.  In  a  word,  every  evil  in  the  world  is  to  be  traced 
to  our  connection  with  the  first  Adam :  every  good  to  our  con- 
nection with  the  Second. 

§  10.  Scriptural  Proofs. 

But  it  may  be  asked.  Are  there  no  plain,  explicit,  positive 
proofs  of  this  doctrine  in  the  Scriptures?  To  this  we  reply, 
What  do  you  consider  plain,  explicit,  positive  proofs?  Do  you 
expect  to  find  systematic  statements,  dogmatic  deliverances,  like 
those  in  our  confessions  and  catechisms?    The  Scriptures  fur- 


The  Arminian  Doctrine:  Defense  and  Proof,  59 


nish  no  proofs  of  that  sort  for  any  doctrines.  But  as  satisfactory- 
proofs  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  are  contained  in  the  Script- 
ures as  can  be  found  there  for  any  other  doctrine. 

1.  That  human  nature  is  inherenthj  depraved  is  plainly,  explicit- 
ly, and  positively  stated  in  such  passages  as  these:  Gen.  viii.  21; 
Job.  XV.  14-16;  Prov.  xxii.  15;  Eccl.  vii.  29;  ix.  3;  Jer.  xvii.  9; 
Matt.  vii.  11;  xv.  19;  Kom.  viii.  5-9;  1  John  i.  8;  ii.  2;  v.  19;  and 
many  other  passages  cited  in  this  discussion,  and  a  multitude 
besides. 

2.  That  this  depravity  is  universal^  extending  through  every 
age  and  in  every  clime,  is  plainly,  explicitly,  and  positive- 
ly stated  in  Gen.  vi.  11,  12;  1  Kings  viii.  46;  Ps.  xiv.  2,  3;  Eccl. 
vii.  20;  Isa.  liii.  6;  Kom.  iii.  9-19;  2  Cor.  v.  14;  Eph.  ii.  1-3;  1 
John  ii.  2;  v.  19;  and  many  other  passages  previously  cited,  and 
a  great  many  besides. 

3.  That  this  depravity  is  fatal  in  the  case  of  every  man,  apart 
from  preventing  or  renewing  grace,  is  plainly,  explicitly,  and  pos- 
itively stated  in  such  passages  as  these:  Gen.vi.  5;  John  iii.  3-8; 
Eom.  vii.  18;  viii.  5-9;  and  many  other  i^assages  previously  cited, 
and  others  of  like  import. 

4.  That  this  depravity  is  hereditary,  as  well  as  inherent,  univer- 
salf  and  total,  is  plainly,  explicitly,  and  positively  stated  in  Job  xi. 
12;  xiv.  4;  xv.  14;  xxv.  4;  Ps.  li.  5;  John  iii.  6;  Eom.  v.  12-21; 
1  Cor.  XV.  21,  22,  45-49;  and  other  passages  cited  in  this  discus- 
sion, and  many  besides. 

These  texts  are  not,  of  course,  equally  plain,  explicit,  and  pos- 
itive; but  when  carefully  examined,  taken  together,  compared 
with  the  general  scope  of  revelation,  in  view  of  our  own  experi- 
ence and  observation,  they  constitute  a  mass  of  evidence  which 
cannot  be  resisted. 

§11.  Conclusion. 

The  depravity  of  our  race  is  thus  shown  to  be  inherent,  wrought 
into  the  very  warp  and  woof  of  our  nature,  hence  it  is  well  called, 
as  previously  explained,  natural  depravity;  universal,  extending 
over  all  the  world  and  through  all  succeeding  generations;  toted, 
embracing  all  the  powers  of  our  nature,  and  comprehending  every 
thought,  word,  and  action,  except  as  antagonized  by  divine  grace; 
and  hereditary,  as  it  is  "Original  or  Birth  Sin:  "  that  which  we 
bring  with  us  into  the  world,  a  fearful  patrimony,  a  sad  inher- 


60 


Onr/inal  or  Birth  Sin, 


itauce!  A  thorough  acquaintance  with  this  doctrine,  and  a  firm 
persuasion  of  its  truth,  prepares  the  way  for  a  hearty  and  grate- 
ful reception  of  the  atonement  in  Christ,  by  which  we  may  be 
recovered  from  the  ruins  of  the  fall  and  be 

Kestored  to  our  unsinning  state, 
To  love's  sweet  paradise. 

[It  still  remains  true  that  man  was  not  dehumanized  (if  the  term 
may  be  pardoned)  by  the  fall.  He  continued  man.  He  did  not 
sink  to  the  level  of  the  beasts,  nor  was  there  such  a  breaking 
down  of  his  faculties  as  to  place  him  in  the  category  of  idiots. 
Keason  and  conscience,  or  the  elements  of  the  natural  image  of 
God,  remained  as  the  avenues  of  divine  approach  for  the  recon- 
struction of  the  moral  image.  Man,  as  man,  was  within  reach  of 
God — was  salvable.  Holiness  does  not  consist  in  the  possession 
of  a  conscience — very  vile  criminals  sometimes  evince  their  pos- 
session of  conscience — but  in  uniform  obedience  to  its  com- 
mands. Eeason  remains  as  a  capability  of  the  knowledge  of  God, 
and  as  making  man  a  fit  recipient  of  the  truths  of  divine  revela- 
tion. .  Beasts,  with  their  present  constitution,  cannot  be  ap- 
proached concerning  morality  or  religion  by  either  human  or 
divine  agencies.  The  truth  that  7nan  is  man,  and  that  God  deals 
with  him  as  possessing  those  essential  characteristics  without 
which  he  would  cease  to  be  human,  is  evidently  consistent  with 
the  doctrine  of  inherent,  natural,  universal,  total,  and  hereditary 
depravity  as  taught  above.] 


PART  11. 


ARTICLE  VIIL 

Of  Free-will. 

The  condition  of  man  after  the  fall  of  Adam  is  such  that  he  can^ 
not  turn  and  prepare  himself,  hy  his  own  natural  strength  and  icorks^ 
to  faith,  and  calling  upon  God;  wherefore  we  have  no  j^ou-er  to  do 
good  icorjcsy  pleasant  and  acceptable  to  God,  without  the  grace  of  God 
hg  Christ  preventing  us,  that  we  mag  have  a  good  will,  and  icorkitig 
with  us,  ichen  tve  have  that  good  will. 

Introduction. 

This  is  copied  verhcdim  from  Article  X.  of  the  Anglican  Con- 
fession, except  that  Mr.  AVesley  omitted  the  word  "  good  "  pre- 
fixed to  "works"  where  this  word  first  occurs;  the  language  is 
stronger  by  the  omission. 

This  article  is  complemental  to  the  preceding  on  Original  Sin; 
and  in  the  Forty-two  Articles  of  1552  it  was  followed  by  anoth- 
er of  a  similarly  complemental  character,  to-wit: 

The  grace  of  Christ,  or  the  Holy  Ghost  by  ]iini  given,  doth  take  away  the  stony 
licart  and  giveth  an  lieart  of  fiesli.  And  although  those  who  hiive  no  will  to  good 
things,  lie  maketh  them  will,  and  those  that  would  evil  things,  he  maketh  thera 
not  to  will,  yet  nevertheless  lie  enforceth  not  the  will.  And  therefore  no  man, 
when  he  sinneth,  can  excuse  himself  as  not  worthy  to  be  blamed  or  condemned, 
by  alleging  that  he  sinned  unwillingly  or  by  compulsion. 

This  article,  "  Of  Grace,"  was  omitted  in  the  Thirty-nine  Ar- 
ticles to  conciliate  the  Calvinists. 

The  article  on  Free-will,  as  it  stood  in  1552,  began  with  the 
words,  AVe  have  no  power,"  and  was  borrowed  in  substance 
from  St.  Augustin.  The  former  part  was  prefixed  in  1562  by 
Archbishop  Parker,  who  took  it  substantially  from  the  Wurtem- 
burg  Confession. 

In  the  article  as  set  forth  in  1552  and  1562,  it  reads  "  working 
in  us"  but  as  set  forth  in  1571,  it  is  "working  with  us:"  this 
better  expresses  the  meaning  of  the  Latin  co-operante,  and  is 
equally  scriptural. 

(61) 


CHAPTER  L 


FREE-WILL  AND  INABILITY. 

§  1.  Pelagianism,  Semi-Pelagianism,  and  their  Modifica- 
tions Condemned. 

This  article  is- leveled  against  Pelagianism  and  Semi-Pelagian-^ 
ism,  and  the  modifications  thereof  by  the  Schoolmen  and  Ro- 
manists. 

As  the  Pelagians  denied  the  doctrine  of  inherent,  inherited, 
and  total  depravity,  they  consistently  held  that  men  can  begin, 
continue,  and  end  every  good  work  withoat  "the  internal  suc- 
cors of  the  Divine  Spirit:"  "external  grace  alone  being  neces- 
sary to  excite  their  endeavors." 

The  Semi-Pelagians— who  are  traced  to  the  monk  Cassian, 
who  came  from  the  East,  and  founded  a  monastery  at  Marseilles, 
in  the  fourth  century --held  that  men  without  preventing  grace 
are  capable  of  faith  and  holy  desires,  but  that  they  cannot  per- 
severe in  the  virtuous  course  which  they  have  the  power  of  be- 
ginning, without  the  peri)etual  support  and  the  powerful  assist- 
ance of  divine  grace. 

The  Schoolmen  generally  inclined  to  Semi-Pelagianism. 
The  Thomists  held  that  man,  by  God's  aid,  can  merit  eternal 
life:  this  is  called  the  merit  of  co)idirj)ufi/.  The  Scotists  held 
that  man  in  his  natural  state  can  so  live  as  to  deserve  the  grace 
of  God  by  which  he  may  obtain  salvation,  this  natural  fitness 
for  grace  being  such  as  to  oblige  God  to  grant  it:  this  is  the 
merit  of  conf/ndtf/.  The  Thirteenth  Article  of  the  Anglican  Con- 
fession is  leveled  against  this  Scotist  figment;  but  as  the  present 
article  opposes  it,  the  former  was  not  incorporated  into  our 
Confession.  The  controversy  between  the  Thomists  and  the 
Scotists  was  revived  by  the  Bomish  doctors  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation.  The  Jesuits  were,  and  still  are,  generally  Pela- 
gians or  Semi-Pelagians.  Two  distinguished  divines  of  this 
Order,  Leonard  Less  and  John  Hamel,  boldly  advanced  the  Pela- 
gian system;  their  views  were  condemned  by  the  Faculties  of 

•  (62) 


Free-will  and  Inahiliti/. 


63 


the  University  of  Louvain  and  of  Douay;  but  Mayence,  Treves, 
and  Ingolstadt  declared  for  the  Jesuits.  Subsequently,  the  Jan- 
senists,  who  were  popish  Calvinists,  opposed  the  Jesuits,  but 
made  small  headway  against  their  enemies,  who  were  favored  by 
the  pope. 

§2.  "New  Divinity"  in  New  England:  Parable  of  the 
Great  Supper. 

The  Socinians  and  their  followers,  the  Unitarians,  being  gen- 
erally Pelagians  6r  Semi-Pelagians,  oppose  the  doctrine  of  this 
article.  So  also  do  the  so-called  New  Divinity  men  of  this  coun- 
try. "  The  three  main  points  of  New  England  theology,  in  Pro- 
fessor Park's  view,  are  *  that  sin  consists  in  choice,  that  our  nat- 
ural power  equals,  and  that  it  also  limits  our  duty. '  "  This  New 
Divinity  is  essentially  Pelagian,  as  it  denies  that  sin  is  in  the 
nature  of  man,  but  only  in  his  voluntary  actions,  and  affirms  that 
man  has  the  natural  ability  to  do  what  God  requires.  They 
generally,  however,  hold,  like  other  Calvinists,  to  the  dogma  of 
election,  and  maintain  that  no  one  ever  did  so  exercise  that  nat- 
ural ability  as  thereby  to  secure  salvation:  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
they  say  none  are  saved  but  the  elect,  who  are  made  "willing  in 
the  day  of  God's  power."  Such  are  the  inconsistencies  of  er- 
ror. They  illustrate  the  subject  by  a  perversion  of  the  parable 
of  the  great  supper  (Luke  xiv.).  All  are  invited  to  it;  there  is 
enough  for  all;  all  have  the  natural  ability  to  come,  but  none 
have  the  moral  ability:  therefore  none  come  to  the  feast.  But 
that  there  may  not  be  an  entire  failure,  the  maker  of  the  feast 
selects  some  of  the  delinquents,  and  forces  them  to  come  or  makes 
them  willing,  ?.  e.,  gives  them  a  moral,  as  well  as  a  natural,  ability 
to  come.  Thus  they  fancy  they  reconcile  what  they  call  "  divine 
sovereignty  "  to  free  agency.  How  strange  that  they  do  not  de- 
tect the  sophistry  in  this  argument!  The  fallacious  use  of  the 
terms  natural  and  moral  is  transparent.  The  act  to  be  performed 
is  a  moral  act,  and  the  moral  inability  to  perform  it  is  natural  to 
every  man  (apart  from  divine  assistance),  so  that  there  is  no  con- 
trast between  natuml  and  moral.  The  question  is  not  whether  all 
men  have  intellect,  sensibility,  and  will,  as  without  these  nat- 
ural faculties  none  would  be  men:  these  are  the  essential  attri- 
butes of  humanity.  But  if  for  any  reason  they  are  incapable, 
without  extrinsic  aid,  of  using  those  faculties  for  the  perform- 


64  Of  Free-uiU. 

ance  of  any  virtuous  action,  then  the  inability  is  both  natural 
and  moral:  it  is  natural,  because  it  results  from  their  natural 
depravity,  the  sin  that  dwelleth  in  them,  and  with  which 
they  were  born;  and  moral,  because  it  has  respect  to  moral  sub- 
jects, involving  duty  and  responsibility.  The  arbitrary  selection 
of  a  few  from  the  great  mass  of  delinquents,  all  alike  rejecting 
the  invitation,  may  excite  the  wonder  and  gratitude  and  jOy  of 
the  eledf  the  exclusive  favorites  of  the  master  of  the  feast,  but 
would  hardly  produce  similar  sentiments  in  the  bosoms  of  the 
reprobate. 

Did  not  the  Lord  know  when  he  "spread  the  feast,"  and  gave 
the  universal  invitation  to  it,  that  none  would  come,  that  none 
could  come  to  it,  unless  something  else  were  done  to  bring  them 
in?  and  that  it  was  tantalizing  them  to  invite  them  to  come  when 
they  could  not  come  without  that  aid,  which  he  would  not  give 
them?  The  true  state  of  the  case  is  this:  All  men  alike  are  nat- 
urally incapable  of  turning  to  God  and  doing  his  will,  without 
preventing  and  co-operating  grace;  all  are  alike  capable  of  doing 
so,  by  that  grace  which  is  offered  to  all;  and  none  use  that  grace 
who  might  not  refuse  it,  and  none  refuse  it  who  might  not  use  it; 
BO  that  there  is  no  mystery  about  it,  no  difficulty  whatever,  no 
reconciliation  called  for  of  divine  sovereignty  with  human  re- 
sponsibility. No  one  is  damned  for  his  natural  inability  to  do 
the  will  of  God,  but  for  spurning  the  offer  of  grace  by  which  he 
might  be  enabled  to  do  it. 

§  3.  What  Is  Meant  by  Free-will? 

Let  us  now  more  minutely  examine  what  is  meant  by  Free- 
will— Liberinn  Arhitrhim. 

There  is  an  apparent  tautology  in  this  phrase,  Free-ioiU.  The 
adjective  may  indeed  be  used  merely  as  a  descriptive  epithet, 
not  implying  that  there  may  be  a  bound-will,  as  we  say  "saving 
grace,"  using  the  epithet  as  descriptive,  without  implying  that 
there  is  any  "damning  grace."  But  as  the  divines  of  the  age 
when  this  article  was  written  spoke  of  "  the  bondage  of  the  will," 
as  being  by  nature  free  only  to  evil,  and  incapable  of  good,  it 
may  be  so  u-sed  in  this  place.  Hence,  in  the  body  of  the  article 
the  epithet  "  good "  is  used  twice  in  reference  to  the  will  when 
rectified  by  grace.  Apart  from  grace  the  will  is  bad,  because 
the  man's  nature  is  so  bad  that  of  himself  he  cannot  choose  that 


Free-will  and  Inability. 


65 


which  is  right.  We  are  speaking  of  man  as  he  stands  related  to 
the  first  Adam,  and  as  he  must  ever  remain,  if  we  can  conceive 
of  any  one  having  a  separate  existence  apart  from  the  Second 
Adam.  Indeed,  the  sinner  who  has  lived  without  God  in  the 
\vorld,  when  he  is  illuminated  and  awakened  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
laments  and  deplores  this  wretched  condition. 

Since  by  thy  light  myself  I  see 
Kaked,  and  poor,  and  void  of  thee — 
Thou  know'st  the  baseness  of  my  mind. 
Wayward,  and  impotent,  and  blind; 
Thou  know'st  how  unsubdued  my  will, 
Averse  to. good  and  prone  to  ill; 
Thou  know'st  how  wide  ray  passions  rove, 
Kor  checked  by  fear,  nor  charmed  by  love. 

Again: 

Fain  would  I  know  my  utmost  ill, 
And  groan  my  nature's  weight  to  feel — 
To  feel  the  clouds  that  round  me  roll, 
The  night  that  hangs  upon  ray  soul, 
The  darkness  of  ray  carnal  raind. 
My  will  perverse,  ray  passions  blind. 
Scattered  o'er  all  the  earth  abroad. 
Immeasurably  far  from  God. 

The  discovery  of  this  "  condition  of  man  after  the  fall  of  Adam  " 
is  the  first  result  of  preventing  grace.  It  is  necessary  to  see  "  the 
exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin,"  as  it  is  set  forth  in  Rom.  vii.,  so 
that  we  may  exclaim,  "O  wretched  man  that  I  am!  who  shall  de- 
liver me  from  this  body  of  death  ?  "  that  we  may  be  prepared  for 
the  answer,  "Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

The  old  writers  frequently  speak  of  the  will  as  comprehending 
the  affections.  Thus  Arminius  in  his  Declaration  of  Senti- 
ments—III.,  "The  Free-will  of  Man,"  says:  . 

In  his  primitive  condition,  as  he  came  out  of  the  hands  of  his  Creator,  he  was 
endowed  with  such  a  portion  of  knowledge,  holiness,  and  power,  as  enabled  him 
to  understand,  esteem,  consider,  will,  and  to  perform  the  true  good,  according  to 
the  commandment  delivered  to  him;  yet  none  of  these  acts  could  he  do,  except 
through  the  assistance  of  divine  grace.  But  in  his  lapsed  and  sinful  state  man  is 
not  capable,  of  and  by  himself,  either  to  think,  to  will,  or  to  do  that  which  is  real- 
ly good ;  but  it  is  necessary  for  him  to  be  regenerated  and  renewed  in  his  intellect, 
affections  or  will,  and  in  all  his  powers,  by  God  in  Christ  through  the  Holy  Spirit, 
that  he  may  be  qualified  rightly  to  understand,  esteem,  consider,  will,  and  perform 
whatever  is  truly  good.  When  he  is  made  a  partaker  of  this  regeneration  or 
renovation,  I  consider  that,  since  he  is  delivered  from  sin,  he  is  capable  of  think- 
5 


66 


Of  Free-will, 


ing,  willing,  and  doing  that  which  is  good,  but  yet  not  without  the  continued  aid? 
of  divine  grace. 

Here  he  speaks  of  the  "  affections  or  will,"  as  though  they 
were  interchangeable  expressions.  Elsewhere  he  distinguishes 
between  them,  and  also  shows  that  all  the  acts  preparatory  to 
regeneration  and  renovation  are  performed  by  the  aid  of  prevent- 
ing grace.  But  in  all  the  process  he  holds  that  man  has  the 
power  of  alternate  choice ;  he  can,  by  the  promptings  of  native 
depravity,  reject  the  offered  grace,  while  he  can  choose  to  receive 
that  grace  which  enables  him  to  make  that  initial  choice,  and  then 
to  will  and  to  do  all  that  God  requires. 

John  Wesley  sometimes  speaks  of  the  will  as  the  self-deter- 
mining power  of  the  soul.  Thus,  in  his  Sermon  (108)  on  "  What 
is  Man?"  he  says:  "By  a  single  act  of  my  will  I  put  my  head, 
eyes,  hands,  or  any  part  of  my  body,  into  motion." 

Yet  just  before  he  says: 

Tins  inward  principle,  wherever  it  is  lodged,  is  capable  not  only  of  thinking, 
but  likewise  of  love,  hatred,  joy,  sorrow,  desire,  fear,  hope,  etc.,  and  a  whole  train 
of  other  inward  emotions,  which  are  commonly  called  passions  or  affections.  They 
are  styled,  by  a  general  appellation,  tlie  will,  and  ?ire  mixed  and  diversified  a 
thousand  ways-;  and  they  seem  to  be  the  only  spring  of  action  in  that  inward 
princii)le  we  call  the  soul. 

In  our  present  psychology  we  do  not  so  speak  of  the  will;  but 
v/e  make  it  as  distinct  from  the  affections  as  from  the  intellect;  ■^*' 
and  so  indeed  does  Wesley,'  by  another  name: 

I  am  conscious  to  myself  of  one  more  property  called  "  liberty."  This  is  very 
frequently  confounded  with  the  will,  but  it  is  of  a  very  different  nature.  Neither 
is  it  a  property  of  the  will,  but  a  distinct  property  of  the  soul,  capable  of  being 
exerted  with  regard  to  all  the  faculties  of  the  soul,  as  well  as  all  the  motions  of 
the  body.  It  is  a  power  of  self-determination,  which,  although  it  does  not  extend 
to  all  our  thoughts  and  imaginations,  yet  extends  to  our  words  and  actions  in 
general,  and  not  with  many  exceptions.  I  am  full  as  certain  of  this,  that  I  am 
free,  with  respect  to  these,  to  speak  or  not  to  speak,  to  act  or  not  to  act,  to  do  this 
or  the  contrary,  as  I  am  of  my  own  existence.  I  have  not  only  what  is  termed  a 
"liberty  of  contradiction" — a  power  to  do  or  not  to  do;  but  what  is  termed  a 
"liberty  of  contrariety" — a  power  to  act  one  way  or  the  contrary.  To  deny 
this  would  be  to  deny  the  constant  experience  of  all  human  kind.  Every  one 
feels  that  he  has  an  inherent  power  to  move  this  or  that  part  of  his  body,  to  move 
it  or  not,  and  to  move  this  way  or  the  contrary,  just  as  he  plenses.  T  can,  ns  I 
choose  (and  so  can  every  man  that  is  born  of  woman),  open  or  shut  my  eyes; 

♦Psychologists,  as  stated  above,  onlinaril}'^  classify  the  powers  of  mind  as  (1)  intellect, 
(2)  sensibility,  and  (3)  will.  Before  the  time  of  Kant  (1724-1804)  the  division  avjis  into  fl) 
understanding?,  and  (2)  will;  tlie  emotional  nature,  including  emotions  proper-  appetites, 
desires,  and  affections,  being  undistinguished  from  will.— T. 


Free-u-ill  and  InahUitij. 


67 


speak  or  be  silent;  rise  or  sit  down;  stretch  out  my  hand,  or  draw  it  in;  and  use 
any  of  my  limbs  according  to  my  pleasure,  as  well  as  my  whole  body.  And  al- 
though I  have  not  an  absolute  jjower  over  my  own  mind,  because  of  the  corruption 
of  my  own  nature;  yet,  through  the  grace  of  God  assisting  me,  I  liave  a  power  to 
choose  and  do  good,  as  well  as  evil.  1  am  free  to  choose  whom  1  will  serve;  and, 
if  1  choose  the  better  part,  to  continue  therein  even  unto  death. 

That  is  what  we  call  the  freedom  of  the  will:  it  is  indeed  the 
freedom  of  a  moral  agent.  It  reminds  us  of  Dr.  Johnson's  curt 
and  sensible  saying,  "Man  is  free,  and  he  knows  it;  and  there  is 
an  end  of  it."    Bishox^  Burnet  discourses  to  the  same  effect: 

A  question  arises  out  of  this,  whether  the  will  is  not  always  determined  by  the 
understanding,  so  that  a  man  does  always  choose  and  determine  himself  upon  the 
account  of  some  idea  or  other.  If  this  is  granted,  then  no  liberty  will  be  left  to 
our  faculties.  We  must  apprehend  things  as  they  are  proposed  to  our  understand- 
ing; for  if  a  thing  appears  true  to  us,  we  must  assent  to  it;  and  if  the  will  is  as 
blind  to  the  understanding  as  the  understanding  is  determined  by  the  light  in 
which  the  object  appears  to  it,  then  we  seem  to  be  concluded  under  a  fate  or  neces- 
sity. It  is,  after  all,  a  vain  attempt  to  argue  against  every  man's  experience. 
AVe  perceive  in  ourselves  a  liberty  of  turning  our  minds  to  some  ideas,  or  from 
others;  we  can  think  longer  or  shorter  of  these,  more  exactly  and  steadily,  or 
more  slightly  and  superficially,  as  we  please;  and  in  this  radical  freedom  of  di- 
recting or  diverting  our  tlioughts,  a  main  part  of  our  freedom  does  consist.  Oft- 
en objects  as  they  appear  to  our  tlioughts  do  so  affect  or  heat  them  that  they  seem 
to  conquer  us,  and  carry  us  after  them— some  thoughts  seeming,  as  it  were,  to  in- 
toxicate and  cliarm  us.  Appetites  and  passions,  when  much  fired  by  objects  apt 
to  work  upon  them,  do  agitate  us  strongly;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  impres- 
sions of  religion  come  often  into  our  minds  with  such  a  secret  force,  so  much  of 
terror,  and  such  secret  joy  mixing  with  them,  that  they  seem  to  master  us;  yet  in 
all  this  a  man  acts  freely,  because  he  thinks  and  chooses  for  himself;  and  though 
perhaps  he  does  not  feel  himself  so  entirely  balanced  that  he  is  indifferent  to 
both  sides,  yet  he  has  still  such  a  remote  liberty  that  he  can  turn  himself  to  other 
objects  and  thoughts,  so  that  he  can  divert,  if  not  all  of  a  sudden  resist,  the  pres- 
ent impressions  that  seem  to  master  him.  We  do  also  feel  that  in  many  trifles 
we  do  act  with  an  entire  liberty,  and  do  many  things  upon  no  other  account,  and 
for  no  other  reason,  but  because  we  will  do  them;  and  yet  more  important  things 
depend  on  these. 

That  is  a  very  judicious  remark.  It  is  a  matter  of  conscious- 
ness—with which  reason  has  but  little  to  do,  though  it  does  not 
contradict  it— that  we  have  a  self-determining  power;  and  though 
there  is  generally  some  reason  why  we  choose  this,  and  refuse  that, 
yet  we  are  conscious  of  freedom  in  so  doing.  ATe  are  not  ne- 
•  cessitated  to  do  so  by  any  thing  antecedent  within  us,  or  any 
thing  brought  to  bear  upon  us  from  without;  we  are  conscious 
that'we  can  act  freely;  we  hold  ourselves  responsible  for  our 


68 


Of  Free-will 


action,  and  God  and  man  alike  hold  us  responsible  for  it.  How 
useless,  then,  to  argue  against  it! 

There  are  some  things  so  entirely  indifferent  in  their  character 
that  we  perform  them  without  any  thought  or  concern  about 
them:  nothing  whatever  influences  us  one  way  or  the  other. 

In  questions  of  importance  we  are  influenced  by  considerations 
presented  to  our  minds;  but  still  our  autonomy  is  not  infringed. 
There  may  be  considerations  of  a  contrary  character:  we  decide 
to  which  we  will  yield,  and  act  accordingly. 

Freedom  and  responsibility  would  be  destroyed,  or  set  aside, 
if  we  were  necessitated  to  act  according  to  motives  over  which 
we  have  no  control,  as  truly  as  if  some  stronger  power  were  to 
lay  hands  upon  us,  and  mechanically  force  us  to  do  any  act  con- 
trary to  our  will. 

§4.  Inability  of  Man. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  account  for  man's  inability  to  will 
and  to  do  good  v/orks  pleasant  and  acceptable  to  God. 

The  article  traces  it  to  "  the  fall  of  Adam,"  and  our  relation 
to  it.  By  this,  as  is  set  forth  in  the  Seventh  Article,  we  are  in- 
volved in  moral  depravity,  inherent,  inherited,  total,  and  uni- 
versal, such  a  "  condition  "  as  is  absolutely  hopeless,  apart  from 
divine  grace,  so  hopeless  that  Adam  would  not  have  been  al- 
lowed to  "  engender  "  his  posterity  had  there  not  been  a  redemp- 
tion provided  for  them  in  "the  grace  of  God  by  Christ." 

This  depravit}^,  as  we  have  seen,  affects  our  entire  nature. 
The  intellect  is  blinded  and  reduced  to  a  state  of  ineptitude  in 
regard  to  divine  things.  "  Having  the  understanding  darkened, 
being  alienated  from  the  life  of  God  through  the  ignorance 
that  is  in  them."  (Eph.  iv.  18.)  The  sensibility  is  obtunded  by 
apathy  as  to  good,  and  inflamed  and  excited  by  concupiscence 
as  to  evil.  The  will,  accordingly,  is  perverse  naturally,  and, 
without  divine  interposition,  inevitably  "averse  to  good,  and 
prone  to  ill."  Here  is  the  bondage  of  the  will.  Self-determi- 
nation— the  power  of  volition — remains.  But  who  is  the  sub- 
ject? and  what  are  the  objects  of  choice?  The  subject  is  one 
whose  nature  is  utterly  depraved;  and  "a  corrupt  tree  cannot 
bring  forth  good  fruit."  It  is  impossible  for  a  man  in  this 
state  to  will  and  to  do  works  pleasant  and  acceptable  to  God. 
How  can  a  man  whose  intellect  is  in  a  state  of  utter  blindness 
and  ineptitude  as  to  divine  things  make  choice  of  them  and  per- 


Free-idll  and  Inahility. 


69 


form  them?  How  can  a  man  whose  sensibility  is  obtunded, 
being  "  past  feeling  "  as  to  any  thing  good,  and  Avho  is  filled 
with  concupiscence,  a  love  and  a  longing  for  all  evil,  choose 
the  good  and  reject  the  evil?  He  simply  cannot  do  it.  "So, 
then,  they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God."  A  man 
in  this  condition  not  only  freely  chooses  according  to  the  mo- 
tives presented  by  his  intellect  and  sensibility,  that  is,  according 
to  his  nature;  but  he  cannot  choose  to  the  contrarj^,  unless  con- 
trary motives  are  presented  to  him,  his  intellect  being  enlight- 
ened and  his  sensibility  affected  by  divine  grace. 

This  is  the  teaching  of  the  article.  It  not  only  opposes  the 
Pelagians,  but  also  tiie  Semi-Pelagians,  of  whatever  class,  Pa- 
tristic, Scholastic,  Eomish,  or  Neo-Calvinistic. 

The  early  intemperate  utterances  of  Luther  concerning  the 
natural  bondage  of  the  will,  either  to  God  or  the  devil,  accord- 
ing to  the  Augustinian  scheme  of  absolute  and  unconditional 
predestination,  which  he  then  held,  but  afterward  repudiated,  or 
modified,  or  ignored,  were  discussed  in  the  Council  of  Trent, 
which  had  the  advantage  of  the  Reformer  on  this  subject.  But 
as  the  Franciscans  and  Dominicans  in  the  Council  antagonized 
each  other  on  this  question,  the  Council  endeavored  to  steer  a 
middle  course,  though  it  evidently  leaned  to  the  Franciscan, 
Scotist,  or  Semi-Pelagian  party,  against  the  Dominicans,  who 
were  Thomists  and  Augustinians.  The  Council  condemned 
those  who  said  that  "  since  the  sin  of  Adam  free-will  is  lost." 
That  was  leveled  against  Luther;  but  the  Dominicans  were  pac- 
ified by  the  assertion  of  the  necessity  of  preventing  grace.  The 
Council,  perhaps,  would  say  that  free-will,  the  capacity  of  choos- 
ing good  or  evil,  is  not  wanting  to  man,  in  view  of  the  redemp- 
tion by  Christ:  that  would  make  their  deliverance  quadrate 
with  our  article,  with  the  Scriptures,  and  our  own  experience. 


CHAPTER  II. 

PREVENTING  AND  CO-OPERATING  GRACE. 

We  come  now  to  show  how  this  natural  inability  may  be  over- 
come.  The  article  says,  by  preventing  and  by  co-ojjerating  grace. 

§  1.  Grace  Defined. 
It  will  be  expedient  first  to  inquire  what  is  meant  by  "  grace." 
Xdfjt-  (Heb.  cJiain),  cjrcdia,  denotes  generally  that  Avhich  gives 
pleasure  or  gratificdtion.  Hence  it  is  used  in  the  Scriptures  for 
acceptable  or  eloquent  speech  (Luke  iv.  22;  Eph.  iv.  29;  CoL  iv. 
G;  cf.  Ps.  xiv.  2) ;  it  is  used  also  as  an  accusative  for  in  favor  of,  on 
account  of  and  the  like  (Luke  vii.  47;  Eph.  iii.  1).  It  is  used 
for  favor,  good-will  (Rom.  v.  17),  and  frequently  for  an  act  of 
favor  or  kindness,  or  the  gratification  resulting  from  a  benefit 
conferred  (Rom.  iv.  4;  2  Cor.  i.  15,  and  elsewhere);  also  for  grat- 
itude, a  return  for  a  favor  received  (Luke  vi.  32-34;  xvii.  9,  ct  al. ) 
But  theologians  use  the  word  also  to  denote  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  upon  the  soul  of  man,  exerted  to  promote  liis  sal- 
vation. Thus  the  article  on  Grace,  in  the  Confession  of  1552, 
already  cited,  says:  "  The  grace  of  Christ,  or  the  Holy  Ghost  by 
him  given,  doth  take  away  the  stony  heart  and  giveth  an  heart  of 
flesh."  In  Watson's  "Biblical  and  Theological  Dictionary," 
under  the  word  "Grace,"  we  read,  after  the  scriptural  definitions 
of  the  word: 

In  theological  language  grace  also  signifies  divine  influence  upon  the  soul; 
and  it  derives  the  name  from  this  being  the  eflect  of  the  great  grace,  or  favor,  of 
God  to  mankind.  Austin  defines  inward  actual  grace  to  be  the  inspiration  of 
love,  Avhich  prompts  us  to  practice  according  to  what  we  know,  out  of  a  religious 
afiTection  and  compliance.  lie  says,  likewise,  that  the  grace  of  God  is  the  bless- 
ing of  God's  sweet  influence,  whereby  we  are  induced  to  take  pleasure  in  that 
which  he  commands,  to  desire  and  to  love  it;  and  that  if  God  does  not  prevent  us 
with  this  blessing,  what  he  commands  not  only  is  not  perfected,  l)ut  is  not  so 
much  as  begun  in  us.  "SVithout  the  inward  grace  of  Jesus  -Christ  man  is  not  able 
to  do  the  least  thing  that  is  good.  He  stands  in  need  of  this  grace  to  begin,  con- 
tinue, and  finish  all  the  good  he  does,  or,  rather,  which  God  does  in  him,  and 
with  him,  by  his  grace.  This  grace  is  free;  it  is  not  due  to  us;  if  it  Avcre  due  to 
us  it  would  be  no  more  grace;  it  would  be  a  debt.  (Rom.  xi.  0.)  It  is  in  its 
nature  an  assistance  so  powerful  and  efficacious  that  it  surmounts  the  obstinacy  of 
the  most  rebellious  human  heart,  without  destroying  human  liberty. 
(70) 


Preventing  and  Co-operating  Grace. 


71 


In  this  sense  the  word  "  grace  "  is  frequently  used  in  the  Lit- 
urgy.   Thus  in  the  title  of  "  The  Third  Collect "  to  be  used  in 
•  the  Morning  Service—"  for  Grace."    The  word  does  not  occur 
in  the  Collect,  but  this  is  what  it  designates: 

Grant  tliat  this  day  ^ve  fall  into  no  sin ;  neither  run  into  any  kind  of  danger; 
but  that  all  our  doings  may  be  ordered  by  thy  governance,  to  do  always  that  is 
rigliteons  in  thy  sight,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

So  in  the  prayer  for  the  Supreme  Eulers: 

So  replenish  tlieni  with  the  grace  of  thy  Holy  Spirit  that  they  may  always  in- 
cline to  thy  will,  and  walk  in  thy  way. 

So  in  other  Collects  and  Prayers — as  three  times  in  the  Litany. 

But  the  best  description  of  preventing,  accompanying,  and 
consummating  grace  is  in  that  noble  prayer  in  the  Ordination 
Service,  which  reads  as  if  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit: 

Prevent  us,  O  Lord,  in  all  our  doings,  with  thy  most  gracious  favor,  and  fur- 
ther us  with  thy  continual  lielp,  that  in  all  our  works,  begun,  continued,  and 
ended  in  thee," we  may  glorify  thy  holy  name,  and  finally,  by  thy  mercy,  obtain 
everlasting  life,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  Amen. 

The  leading  principle  of  the  Semi-Pelagians  is  "that  man,  be- 
fore he  receives  grace,  is  capable  of  faith  and  holy  desires:'* 
this  our  article  denies.  How  strange  that  there  should  have 
always  been  a  leaven  of  this  heresy  in  the  Anglican  Church! 
Yet  such  is  the  case.  Thus  Hook,  in  his  "Church  Dictionary," 
Art.  Grace,  says: 

Though  human  nature  is  greatly  depraved,  yet  every  good  disposition  is  not 
totally  extinguished,  nor  is  all  power  of  right  action  entirely  annihilated.  Men 
may  therefore  make  some  spontaneous,  though  feeble,  attempt  to  act  conformably 
to  their  duty,  which  will  be  promoted  and  rendered  effectual  by  the  co-operation 
of  God's  grace;  or  the  grace  of  God  may  so  far  prevent "  our  actual  endeavors 
as  to  awaken  and  dispose  us  to  our  duty,  but  yet  not  in  such  a  degree  that  v/e 
cannot  withstand  its  influence. 

It  seems  we  may  take  either  alternative,  Semi-Pelagianism 
or  orthodoxy! 

*  Because  the  word  "  prevent,"  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  our  Author- 
ized Version  of  the  Bible,  and  in  the  Liturgy  and  Articles,  is  now  generally  used 
in  the  sense  of  "hinder,"  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  lias  changed  it  in  this 
prayer  to  "  Direct" — a  most  unhappy  change!  When  some  one  proposed  in  the 
*»  Conference  to  substitute  "Assist "  in  our  book.  Dr.  Coke  rose  up  with  great  emo- 
tion, and  said,  "Never!  I  will  go  to  the  stake  first.  The  brother  can  do  with  a 
little  assistance,  can  he?  Never!".  So  the  change  was  not  made,  thank  the  Lord! 
We  can  condone  the  ignorance  of  one  of  the  African  Methodist  Connections,  which, 
thinking  the  word  meant  "hinder,"  actually  inserted  the  word  "wrong"  thus; 
"  Prevent  us,  O  Lord,  in  all  our  urong  doings! " 


72 


Of  Free-will. 


There  is  no  objection  to  tlie  use  of  the  word  "grace"  in  the 
theological  as  well  as  the  scriptural  sense.  Bishop  Burnet  well 
remarks:  "There  are  inward  assistances  given  to  us  in  the  new 
dispensation.  I  do  not  dispute  whether  these  are  fitly  called 
(jrace^  for  perhaps  that  word  will  scarce  be  found  in  that  sense  in 
the  Scriptures."  We  do  not  dispute  about  it.  We  use  it  in  both 
senses,  as  in  the  beautiful  hymn  of  Dr.  Doddridge  on  "  Grace;  " 

Grace  first  contrived  the  way 

To  save  rebellious  man; 
And  all  the  steps  that  grace  display 

"Which  drew  the  wondrous  plan. 

There  is  grace  in  the  scriptural  sense. 

Grace  taught  my  wand'ring  feet 

To  tread  the  heavenly  road. 
And  new  supplies  each  hour  1  meet 

While  pressing  on  to  God. 

There  is  grace  in  the  theological  sense:  preventing,  accom- 
panying, and  consummating.  Thus  he  says,  "  Grace  all  the  work 
shall  crown!"  The  Wesleys  use  it  in  this  sense  freely  in  their 
hymns. 

§  2.  "  Free  Grace:  "  In  All  and  For  All. 

The  expression  "free  grace  '  is  ambiguous.  It  means  that 
God's  favor  to  us  is  undeserved:  it  is  free  in  all.  But  then  it 
also  means  that  it  is  free  for  all.  This  is  well  set  forth  by  Wes- 
ley in  his  sermon  on  "Free  Grace,"  by  which  Mr.  Whitefield 
was  ofPended,  but  for  which  he  ought  to  have  thanked  his  friend, 
as  the  unanswerable  arguments  against  the  theory  of  "  particu- 
lar redemption"  ought  to  have  encouraged  him  in  flying  like  a 
seraph  over  the  world,  preaching  salvation  to  all  men,  as  Wes- 
ley shows  from  the  Scripture  that  the  grace  is  free  for  all. 
Why  preach  it  to  all,  if  all  have  not  an  interest  in  it  ?  In  open- 
ing his  sermon  Wesley  says: 

How  freely  does  God  love  the  \yorld!  While  we  were  yet  sinners,  "Christ 
died  for  the  ungodly."  While  we  were  "dead  in  sin,"  God  "spared  not  his  own 
Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all."  And  how  freely  with  him  does  he  "give 
us  all  things!  "    Verily,  Free  Grace  is  all  in  all! 

The  grace  or  love  of  God,  whence  cometh  our  salvation,  is  free  in  all,  and  4 
free  for  all.  / 
First.  It  is  free  in  all  to  whom  it  is  given.  .It  does  not  depend  on  any  power 
or  merit  in  man;  no,  not  in  any  degree,  neither  in  whole  nor  in  part.  It  does 
not  in  any  wise  depend  either  on  the  good  works  or  righteousness  of  the  receiver; 
not  on  any  thing  he  has  done,  or  any  thing  he  is.    It  does  not  depend  on  his  en- 


Preventing  and  Co-operating  Grace. 


73 


deavors.  It  does  not  depend  on  his  good  tempers,  or  good  desires,  or  good  2)ur- 
poses  and  intentions;  for  all  these  flow  from  the  free  grace  of  God;  they  are  the 
streams  only,  not  the  fountain.  They  are  the  fruits  of  free  grace,  and  not  the 
root.  They  are  not  the  cause,  but  the  effects  of  it.  Whatsoever  good  is  in  man 
or  is  done  by  man,  God  is  the  author  and  doer  of  it.  Thus  is  his  grace  free  in 
all;  that  is,  no  way  depending  on  any  power  or  merit  in  man,  but  on  God  alone, 
who  freely  gave  us  his  ov/n  Son,  and  "  with  him  freely  giveth  us  all  things." 

But  is  it  free  for  all,  as  well  as  in  all?  To  this  some  have  answered,  "No;  it 
is  free  only  for  those  whom  God  hath  ordained  to  life;  and  they  are  but  a  little 
flock.  The  greater  part  of  mankind  God  hath  ordained  to  death;  and  it  is  not 
free  for  them.  Them  God  hateth ;  and  therefore,  before  they  were  born,  de- 
creed they  should  die  eternally.  And  this  he  absolutely  decreed;  because  so 
was  his  good  pleasure;  because  it  was  his  sovereign  will.  Accordingly, *they  are 
born  for  this — to  be  destroyed,  body  and  soul,  in  hell.  And  they  grow  up  under 
the  irrevocable  curse  of  God,  without  any  possibility  of  redemption;  for  what 
grace  God  gives  he  gives  only  for  this,  to  increase,  not  prevent,  their  damnation." 

Wesley  then  refutes  the  dogma  in  question,  and  shows  that 
as  grace  is  free  in  all,  so  also  is  it  free  for  all. 

§  3.  Regeneration  Defined. 

There  is  another  term,  which,  though  it  does  not  occur  in  this 
article,  is  found  in  our  Seventeenth  (Anglican  Twfenty-seA'enth) 
Article,  viz.:  "regeneration"  and  the  cognate  "born  again" 
(Latin,  regeneratP),  in  the  Fifteenth  Anglican,  and  is  frequently 
used  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  which  it  might  be  well  to 
define. 

P((Ungenesia,  regeneratio  occurs  but  twice  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. In  Matt.  xix.  28  it  refers  to  the  renovation,  or  restoration, 
which  is  to  be  consummated  at  the  second  coming  of  Christ. 
In  Titus  iii.  5,  6:  "According  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the 
washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
he  shed  on  us  abundantly:"  this  refers  to  baptism;  and  the 
phrase  "washing,"  or  laver,  "of  regeneration,"  may  mean  the 
washing  effected  by  regeneration,  or  the  washing  symbolical  of 
regeneration.  If  the  former,  then  regeneration  stands  for  bap- 
tism, according  to  the  use  of  the  word  by  the  Fathers;  if  the 
latter,  then  "the  washing"  means  baptism,  and  regeneration 
means  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  is  joined  to  the 
washing  to  limit  the  idea.  It  is  not  every  washing  that  is  bap- 
tism; tljat  washing  alone  is  baptism  which  is  the  washing  of 
regeneration,  an  application  of  water  as  a  solemn  pledge  and 
symbol  of  the  regenerating  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 


74 


Of  Free-uill. 


Dr.  Knapp  ("Christian  Theology,"  Sec.  126)  says: 

Baptism  is  called,  Tit.  iii.  5,  /.ovrpdv  TzaAiyyeveolac^  because  we  are  not  only  sol- 
emnly admitted  by  this  rite  into  tiie  Christian  Society,  but  are  likewise  thereby 
obligated,  according  to  the  precepts  of  Christ,  to  become  reformed  in  character; 
and  on  this  condition  have  all  the  rights  and  rewards  of  God's  children  granted 
and  assured  to  us.  So  the  Rabbins  expressed  themselves  with  regard  to  the  bap- 
tism of  proselytes.  And  for  this  reason  the  most  ancient  Fathers,  Ignatius  and 
Justin,  call  baptism  avayevvr/oir. 

The  Fathers  commonly  use  the  word  regeneration  for  baptism: 
sometimes  they  embrace  in  it  what  is  called  "the  grace  of  bap- 
tism," but  what  we  call  the  thing  signified  by  baptism,  namely, 
"the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  ambiguous-  use  of  the 
word  led  to  the  i^reposterous  dogma  of  baptismal  regeneration, 
as  held  by  papists  and  others.  There  could  be  no  objection  to 
the  use  of  the  word  regeneration  as  denoting  baptism,  by  which 
men  are  introduced  into  a  new  state — into  the  visible  Church  of 
Christ — if  those  who  so  use  it  would  confine  it  to  that  meaning, 
and  not  under  it  sophistically  introduce  the  idea  of  spiritual  re- 
generation. To  illustrate:  we  might  use  the  address  in  the  An- 
glican Office^for  Private  Baptism  of  Children:  "Seeing  now, 
dearly  beloved,  that  this  child  is  by  baptism  regenerate,  and 
grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  Church,"  etc.  But  we  could 
not  proceed  with  the  thanksgiving:  "  We  yield  thee  most  hearty 
thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regen- 
erate this  infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit,"  etc. 

The  former  might  simply  mean  a  ritual,  external  regeneration, 
the  admission  into  the  kingdom  of  God  visibly  and  outwardly 
considered,  as  in  John  iii.  5,  where  to  be  born  of  water  is  to  be 
baptized,  and  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit  is  to  experience  the  inward, 
spiritual  change  which  baptism  symbolizes,  and  which  in  the 
thanksgiving  is  attributed  to  baptism. 

The  only  plausible  interpretation  that  can  be  given  to  the  lan- 
guage, "  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  thy 
Holy  Spirit,"  is  that  which  makes  every  act  of  the  Church  and 
its  ministers  an  act  of  the  Spirit,  as  every  act  is  done  under  his 
authority,  superintendence,  and  sanction,  according  to  1  Cor.  xii. 
But  Moberly,  in  his  Bampton  Lectures  (1868)  on  "The  Admin- 
istration of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Body  of  Christ,"  runs  this  into 
a  mystic  and  scarcely  intelligible  form  of  baptismal  regeneration, 
involving  some  kind  of  change  of  nature  produced  in  the  infant, 
in  or  by  baptism. 


Preventing  and  Co-ojjemting  Grace, 


75 


This  ambig-uous  and  sophistical  use  of  terms  is  found  in  the 
Catechism  of  tlie  Cliurch  of  England,  where  the  catechumen  is 
made  to  say  that  a  sacrament  is  "an  outward  and  visible  sign 
of  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace;"  and  immediately  to  add,  that 
there  are  two  parts  in  the  sacrament,  the  outward  and  visible 
si^-n,  and  the  inward  spiritual  grace!  Water  is  the  outward  visi- 
ble sign,  and  the  inward  spiritual  grace  is  "  a  death  unto  sin,  and 
a  new  birth  unto  righteousness;  for,  being  by  nature  born  in  sin, 
and  the  children  of  wrath,  we  are  hereby  made  the  children  of 
grace."  That  is,  the  thing  signified  by  baptism  is  the  second 
part  of  baptism,  the  sacrament  symbolizing  one  of  its  parts, 
and  this  part,  the  renewing  of  the  soul,  the  new  birth  unto  right- 
eousness! What  contradiction!  What  dangerous  doctrine!  The 
Twenty-seventh  Article  of  the  Anglican  Confession  gives  no  such 
uncertain  sound:  "Baptism  is  a  sign  of  regeneration,  or  new 
birth."  Here  the  word  regeneration  is  ased  to  denote  the  inward 
spiritual  change  effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Thus  Knapp  paraphrases  John  iii.  3,  5:  "Whoever  is  not 
born  of  baptism  and  the  Holy  Sjjirit  (/.  c,  does  not  consecrate 
himself  by  baptism  to  the  profession  of  my  religion,  and  does 
not  become,  through  divine  assistance,  a  reformed  nuoi,  a  cJuId  of 
God,  a  friend  of  God,  like  him  in  moral  character),  cannot  be 
considered  a  member  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom.""^ 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  cognate  terms,  "born  again,"  "be- 
gotten of  God,"  etc.,  used  so  frequently  in  the  First  Epistle  of 

The  fancied  liendiadys  making  "  water  and  Spirit "  one  and  the  same  tiling 
in  John  iii.  5,  and  "  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire"  one  and  the  same  thing  in  Matt, 
iii.  11,  so  far  as  we  now  remember,  originated  with  Calvin.  A  few  Kemonstrants 
indorsed  it;  but  the  Puritans  claim  it,  and  they  are  welcome  to  it.  It  is  unex- 
egetical,  as  we  have  shown  in  our  "Commentary,"  and  contrary  to  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  great  body  of  Biblical  critics,  ancient  and  modern,  including  John 
Goodwin,  Wesley,  "Watson,  and  Bloomfield.  Winer  (Gram.  Gr.  Test.,  Sec.  G6, 
par.  7)  says:  "Expositors  have  actually  asserted  the  existence  of  this  figure  in 
the  X.  T. — e.  r/.,  Matt.  iii.  11 ;  Acts  xiv.  13  ;  John  i.  14 — but  the  list  of  examples 
alleged  does  not,  when  strictly  examined,  furnish  one  that  is  unquestionable." 
When,  therefore,  certain  writers  twit  us  Avith  a  belief  in  the  Popish  dogma  of 
baptismal  regeneration,  because  we  very  i)roperly  use  John  iii.  1-8  in  the  Bap- 
tism of  Adults,  they  betray  their  ignorance,  if  not  a  worse  quality.  The  Office 
of  Baptism  carefully  discriminates  bet^veen  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified;  it 
does  not  confound  them  together  nor  put  one  in  the  place  of  the  other:  thus 
avoiding  both  errors,  Puritan  and  Popish.  Even  Augustin  saw  the  distinction, 
though  through  a  glass  darkly — "City  of  God,"  xiii.  7, 


76 


Of  Free'iriU. 


John,  denote  the  inward,  spiritual  change,  without  any  reference 
to  baptism.    (C/.  1  Pet.  i.  23. } 

Some  extend  the  meaning  of  regeneration  so  as  to  comprehend 
all  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  first  operation  of  pre- 
venting grace  to  the  last  touch  of  consummating  grace.  Thus 
Bishop  Browne,  whose  discourse  on  this  article  is  ambiguous 
and  self-contradictory:  "  Passages  which  speak  of  new  birth  and 
new  creation  show  plainly  that  God's  grace  prevents  us,  Avaits 
not,  that  is,  for  us  to  make  advances  to  him,  but  graciously  comes 
forward  to  help  us,  whilst  yet  we  are  without  strength."  That 
is  the  dialect  of  Calvinism.  We  are  dead,  and  can  do  nothing 
till  we  are  brought  to  life.  "\Ve  are  born  in  sin,  and  can  do 
nothing  till  w^e  are  born  again.  In  birth  and  in  resurrection  the 
subject  is  utterly  passive,  therefore  we  are  utterly  passive  in  re- 
generation— can  do  nothing  till  we  are  regenerated  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Strange  that  men  do  not  see  that  they  are  making  fig- 
ures run  on  all  fours!  Strange  that  they  do  not  see  that  before 
any  one  is  made  a  child  of  God  by  regenerating  grace,  he  has  to 
use  preventing  grace  so  as  to  repent,  believe,  and  call  upon  God. 
"As  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become 
the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name."  (John 
i.  12.)  "For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ 
Jesus."  (Gal.  iii.  26.)  Hence  the  exhortation,  "Repent  ye 
therefore,  and  be  converted  [or  turn  to  God]  that  your  sIds  may 
be  blotted  out,  when  [or  so  that]  the  times  of  refreshing  shall 
come  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord."  (Acts  iii.  19.)  Hence 
the  prayer  for  regenerating  or  renewing  grace:  "Hide  thy  face 
from  my  sins,  and  blot  out  all  mine  iniquities.  Create  in  me  a 
clean  heart,  O  God;  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me.  Cast 
me  not  away  from  thy  presence;  and  take  not  thy  Holy  Spirit 
from  me."  (Ps.  li.  Ot-II.)  All  this  has  no  meaning,  it  is  a  pre- 
posterous impertinence,  if  we  are  not  conducted  by  preventing 
grace  through  a  preparatory  process  of  penitence,  "faith  and 
calling  upon  God,"  for  pardon  and  renewal,  before  we  experience 
justification  and  regeneration.  What  are  all  those  acts  and  ex- 
ercises in  Augustin's  "Confessions"  and  in  Romans  vii.,  if  w^e 
can  do  nothing  by  preventing  grace  in  order  to  realize  justifying 
and  regenerating  grace?  Watson  gives  no  uncertain  sound  on 
this  subject.    He  says  of  regeneration: 

It  is  that  niiglity  cliange  in  man,  wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  v.-hich  the 


Prevent  I  iifj  and  Co-oprrat'nig  Graee. 


77 


dominion  \vhic-h  sin  has  over  liini  in  his  natural  state,  and  wliicli  he  deplores  and 
struggles  against  in  his  penitent  state,  is  broken  and  abolished,  so  that,  with  full 
choice  of  will  and  the  energy  of  right  affections  he  serves  God  freely,  and  runs  in 
the  way  of  his  commandments. 

He  then  proceeds  to  prove  that  regeneration  is  not  repentance,' 
and  does  not  begin  with  repentance,  which  belongs  to  the  pi*e- 
paratory  process  which  has  I'egeneration  in  view.  Regeneration 
"is  as  special  and  instant  a  work  of  God  as  justification,  and  for 
this  reason,  that  it  is  not  attained  before  the  pardon  of  our  sins, 
and  always  accompanies  it." 

§  4.  Preventing  Grace. 

Having  thus  settled  the  meaning  of  the  terms  employed  in 
this  discussion,  it  is  an  easy  task  to  show  how  the  inability  of 
nature  is  overcome,  first  by  preventing,  and  then  by  co-operating 
grace.    And  first,  let  us  notice  preventing  grace. 

As  we  have  seen,  a  man  will  continue  choosing  and  doing 
evil,  unless  by  divine  influence  he  is  shown  what  is  good  and 
urged  to  choose  it.  Now  preventing  grace  is  that  influence.  It 
precedes  our  action,  and  gives  us  the  capacity  to  will  and  to  do 
right,  enlightening  the  intellect,  and  exciting  the  sensibility. 
Everything  that  is  done  for  the  sinner  by  providential  dispensa- 
tions, by  divine  revelation.  Christian  institutions,  "  the  means  of 
grace,"  as  they  are  significantly  styled,  and  all  other  agencies, 
is  employed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  this  economy  of  preventing 
grace.  All  this  is  so  brought  to  bear  upon  the  sinner  that  he 
can  be  the  subject  of  "faith  and  calling  upon  God,"  if  he  chooses; 
or,  if  he  chooses,  he  can  decline  to  do  so,  and  "  do  despite  to  the 
Spirit  of  grace."  [Mr.  "Wesley,  in  his  sermon  on  "  Working  out 
Our  Own  Salvation,"  says: 

For,  allowing  that  all  the  souls  of  men  are  dead  in  sin  by  nature,  this  excuses 
none,  seeing  there  is  no  man  that  is  in  a  state  of  mere  nature;  there  is  no  man, 
unless  he  has  quenched  the  Spirit,  that  is  wholly  void  of  the  grace  of  God.* 

§5.  Co-operating  Grace. 

Then,  as  to  co-operating  grace.  The  term  is  well  chosen— in 
the  Latin  co-opera  fife,  "  working  with  us."    Brown  says: 

The  doctrine  of  co-operation  has  been  opposed  by  many  as  assigning  too  much 
strength  to  man.  iMan,  say  they,  is  altogether  too  weak  either  to  begin  the  work 
•  of  grace,  or  even,  after  that  work  is  begun,  to  contribute  any  thing  toward  its  com- 
pletion. It  is  patcliing  the  pure  robe  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  add  any  of  the 
filthy  rags  of  man's  works  to  it. 


*  "  SermoHe,"  Vol.  III.,  p.  379. 


78 


Of  Fvee-ivill 


The  old  Calvinists  dealt  out  an  infinite  amount  of  such  nou- 
senso;  but  we  do  not  hear  much  of  it  these  times. 

The  word  co-ojjcraiite  was  expressed,  in  the  first  English  re- 
cension of  the  article,  by  "working  in  us;"  but  in  1572  the 
closer  and  better  rendering,  "  working  with  us,"  was  substituted. 
Grace  works  in  us,  of  course;  but  it  cannot  work  in  us,  after  the 
initial  operation,  without  working  with  us. 

Thomas  Aquinas  says:  "  God  works  good  in  us  without  our 
cc-operation,  but  not  Avithout  our  consent."  This  subtile  dis- 
tinction is  worthless.  Our  consent,  or  concurrence,  is  neces- 
sarily co-operant.  On  what  does  grace  operate?  On  an  in- 
telligent, sentient,  passive  nature?  On  a  will  that  has  no 
conative  power?  Does  it  operate  by  coaction,  coercion?  Does 
it  do  all  that  it  shows  us  oaght  to  be  done,  and  that  it  ex- 
cites us  to  have  done?  That  is  to  say,  does  the  Holy  Spirit 
begin  and  continue  to  pour  light  into  our  minds,  while  we  pas- 
sively receive  it,  and  never  use  it?  Does  he  invite,  and  warn, 
and  strive,  and  woo  us  to  let  him  repent,  and  pray,  and  believe, 
and  do  good  works  for  us,  while  we  merely  consent  that  he 
should  do  so?  Yerily,  the  angelical  doctor,  as  Aquinas  is  called, 
was  as  capable  of  absurdity  as  if  he  bore  a  less  pretentious  ti- 
tle! If  "angelical,"  he  is  far  Iromheing  era  nr/elicaL  Co-oper- 
ating grace  is  exerted  by  suggesting,  sustaining,  confirming 
operations,  all  of  which  imply  an  active  as  well  as  a  passive 
subject.  Grace  cannot  operate  except  on  a  free  moral  agent. 
The  gi'eatest  saint  is  dependent  every  moment  upon  co-oper- 
ating grace  for  all  the  good  he  experiences,  and  for  all  the 
good  he  performs. 

Every  moment,  Lord,  I  want 
The  merit  of  thy  death. 

But  that  merit  is  appropriated  by  faith,  and  faith  cannot  be 
exercised  by  the  Holy  Spirit  without  the  subject,  nor. by  the  sub- 
ject without  the  Holy  Spirit.  What  is  this  but  co-operation? 
So  of  all  other  holy  acts  and  exercises.  The  works  are  ours, 
the  power  to  perform  them  comes  from  God.  Thus  he  works 
with  us  by  working  in  us.  This  is  set  forth  with  exquisite  pre- 
cision in  that  beautiful  hymn  of  Charles  Wesley  beginning: 

Father,  to  thee  my  soul  I  lift, 

My  soul  on  thee  depends, 
Convinced  that  every  perfect  gift 

From  thee  alone  descends. 


Preventing  and  Co-ajjerating  Grace., 


79 


The  law  of  plasticity  here  obtains.  There  is  a  plasticity  in  the 
agent— the  capacity  of  molding,  and  shaping,  and  stamping,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  model.  Then  ther^is  a  plasticity  in  the 
subject— the  susceptibility  of  being  thus  molded,  ^nd  shaped, 
and  stamped.  The  potter  cannot  mold  a  flint  bowlder  as  he 
molds  the  clay.  So  far  the  simile  holds;  and  it  is  very  ex- 
pressive. But  let  it  go  on  all  fours,  and  see  what  comes  of  it 
(Watts's  Hymns  i.  117): 

Behold  the  potter  and  the  clay, 

He  forms  his  vessels  as  he  please: 
Such  is  oiir  God  and  such  are  we, 

The  subject  of  his  just  decrees. 

Doth  not  the  workman's  power  extend 
O'er  all  the  mass,  which  part  to  choose 

And  mold  it  for  a  nobler  end. 

And  which  to  leave  for  viler  use? 

May  not  the  Sovereign  Lord  on  high 

Dispense  his  favors  as  he  will — 
Choose  some  to  life  while  others  die — 

And  yet  be  just  and  gracious  still? 

That  is,  man  is  mere  clay.  Clay  has  no  power  to  operate 
with  or  against  the  power  of  the  potter,  therefore  man,  a  moral 
agent,  a  responsible  intelligence,  with  intellect,  sensibility,  and 
will,  is  just  as  powerless,  just  as  passive,  and  as  void  of  concur- 
rent,action,  as  clay  in  the  hands  of  the  potter.  Did  ever  any 
one  hear  clay  ask  the  potter  to  make  it  into  the  shape  of  any 
vessel?  Yet  there  never  was  a  Christian  that  did  not  say  in 
substance: 

Lo,  in  thy  hands  1  lie. 

And  wait  thy  will  to  prove; 
My  Potter,  stamp  on  me  thy  clay. 

Thy  only  stamp  of  love! 

What  sophistry  is  concealed  under  metaphors  and  analogies! 
We  strengthen  our  argument  by  citing  the  admirable  Section, 
No.  IV.,  in  the  Letter  of  Arminius  to  Hippoly tus  a  Collibus : 

Concerning  grace  and  free-will,  this  is  what  I  teach,  according  to  the  Scriptures 
and  orthodox  consent:  Free-will  is  unable  to  begin  or  perfect  any  true  and  spirit- 
ual good,  withnnit  grace.  That  T  may  not  be  said,  like  Pelagius,  to  practice  delu- 
sion with  regard  to  the  word  "  grace,"  I  mean  by  it  that  which  is  the  grace  of  Christ, 
and  which  belongs  to  regeneration.  I  affirm,  therefore,  that  this  grace  is  simply  and 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  illumination  of  the  mind,  the  due  ordering  of  the  affec- 
tions,  and  the  inclination  of  tlie  will  to  that  which  is  good.    It  is  this  grace  which 


80  0/ Free-icUL 

operates  on  the  mind,  the  affections,  and  the  will ;  which  infuses  good  thoughts  into 
the  mind,  inspires  good  desires  into  the  allections,  and  bends  the  will  to  carry  into 
execution  good  thoughts  and  good  desires.  Tliis  grace  [pncvenW]  goes  before,  ac- 
companies, and  follows — it  excites,  assists,  operates  that  we  will,  and  co-operates  lest 
we  .vill  in  vain.  It  averts  temptations,  assists  and  grants  success  in  the  midst  of 
temptations,  sustains  man  against  the  flesh,  the  world,  and  Satan,  and  in  this  great 
contest  grants  to  man  the  enjoyment  of  the  victory.  It  raises  up  again  those  who  are 
conquered  and  have  fallen,  establishes  and  supplies  them  with  new  strength,  and 
renders  them  more  cautious.  This  grace  commences  salvation,  promotes  it,  and 
perfects  and  consummates  it.  I  confess  that  the  mind  of  lanimalis]  a  natural  and 
carnal  man  is  obscure  and  dark,  that  his  affections  are  corrupt  and  inordinate, 
that  his  will  is  stubborn  and  disobedient,  and  that  the  man  himself  is  dead  in  sins. 
And  I  add  to  this — that  teacher  obtains  my  highest  approbation  who  ascribes  as 
much  as  possible  to  divine  grace,  provided  he  so  pleads  the  cause  of  grace  as  not 
to  inflict  an  injury  on  the  justice  of  God,  and  not  to  take  away  the  free-will  to  that 
which  ia  evil. 

How  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  upon  the  soul  to  effect  its  re- 
generation we  cannot  tell.  In  the  nature  of  the  case  it  is  an  in- 
soluble mystery.  Solomon  says :  "As  thou  knowest  not  what  is  the 
way  of  the  Spirit,  nor  how  the  bones  do  grow  in  the  womb  of  her 
that  is  with  child:  even  so  thou  knowest  not  the  works  of  God 
who  maketh  all."  (Eccl.  xi.  5.)  With  his  eye  x^erhaps  on  this 
passage  our  Lord  said  to  Nicodemus,  in  referring  to  this  myste- 
rious subject:  "  The  wind  blowetli  where  it  listeth,  and  thou 
hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh, 
and  whither  it  goeth:  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit." 
(John  iii.  8.) 

Perliaps  there  is  something  analogous  in  the  mystery  of  in- 
spiration, which  is  not  rationalistic  on  the  one  hand,  nor  me- 
chanical on  the  other,  but  dynamic,  the  Holy  Spirit  operating 
upon  a  spiritual  nature  which  responds  to  his  influences  and 
willingly  co-operates  with  them. 

Some  spejik  of  a  physical  change  wrought  upon  the  soul 
in  regeneration,  as  if  the  substance  of  it  were  changed,  or 
some  new  faculties  were  created.  But  there  seems  to  be  no  war- 
rant for  this  either  in  Scripture  or  in  experience.  Such  expres- 
sions, when  used  by  our  poets,  must  be  interpreted  as  the  high- 
wrought  language  of  poetry. 

Dr.  Dwight  well  says:  "What  the  precise  nature  of  the  agen- 
cy of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  regenerating  mankind,  is,  in  the  meta- 
physical sense,  man  cannot  know."  That  tlie  Holy  Spirit  oper- 
ates by  the  instrumentality  of  the  word  and  sacraments — the 


Prevent  in  f)  and  Co-opending  Grace. 


81 


means  of  grace — the  Scriptures  assure  us.  (James  i.  18;  1  Pet. 
i.  22,  23.)  But  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  he  cannot  and 
does  not  operate  directly  and  independently  upon  the  soul.  He 
certainly  does  come  in  immediate,  personal  contact  with  every 
human  spirit,  wooing  and  striving  with  every  man  to  bring  him 
to  Christ,  and  restoring  every  penitent  believer  to  the  forfeited 
image  of  Him  who  first  created  him.  (John  iii.  5,  6;  Eom.  viii. 
1-17;  2  Cor.  iii.  17,  18;  Titus  iii.  5,  6u) 

§  6.  Synergism. 

It  does  not  follow  from  the  foregoing  that  monerr/ism  is  true, 
that  man  is  passive  in  regeneration,  that  God  does  all  the 
work,  and  man  none  at  all.  It  is  true  man  cannot  do  God's 
work  in  regeneration,  but  then  God  cannot  do  man's  work  in  the 
process.  There  is  necessarily  a  syner(jis)n^^  the  concurrent  en- 
ergy of  God  and  man.  Calvinists  are  obliged  to  admit  this, 
though  they  contradict  themselves  when  they  make  the  admis- 
sion. It  is  painful  to  see  Dr.  D wight  contending  that  the  agen- 
cy of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  renewing  the  heart  of  man  is  not  irre- 
sistible, since  he  was  resisted  by  the  Jews  of  whom  Stephen 
speaks,  and  yet  that  he  is  never  resisted  by  any  whom  he  under- 
takes to  regenerate!    Dwiglit  says  (Vol.  ii.,  p.  400,  Sermon  72): 

I  know  of  notliing  in  the  regenerating  ngency  of  the  same  Spirit  except  the  fi\ct  • 
that  it  is  never  resisted,  Avhich  proves  it  to  be  irresistible,  any  more  than  that  which 
tlie  Jews  actually  resisted.  That  the  Spirit  of  God  can  do  any  thing  with  man, 
and  constitute  man  any  thing  whicli  lie  pleases,  cannot  be  questioned.  But  that  he 
will  exert  a  regenerating  agency  on  the  human  mind  which  man  has  not  a  natu- 
ral power  to  resist,  or  which  man  could  not  resist,  if  he  would,  is  far  from  being 
satisfactorily  evident  to  me.  Indeed,  I  am  ready  to  question  whether  this  very 
language  does  not  lead  the  mind  to  views  concerning  this  subject  which  are  radi- 
cally erroneous. 

In  Ts.  ex.,  in  which  we  have  an  account  of  Christ's  being  constituted  a  priest 
forever  after  tlie  order  of  Melcliisedek,  we  have,  in  the  third  verse,  this  remarkable 
promise,  made  to  Christ:  "Tliy  people  shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power." 
Til  is  promise  respects  the  very  subject  now  under  consideration,  and  is,  I  suspect, 
a  more  accurate  account  of  it  than  can  be  found  in  the  language  which  I  am  op- 
posing. In  the  day  of  Christ's  power  his  people  are  willing.  The  influence  which 
he  exerts  on  them  by  his  Spirit  is  of  such  a  nature  that  their  wills,  instead  of  at- 
tempting any  resistance  to  it,  coincide  with  it  readily  and  cheerfully— without  any 
force  or  constraint  on  his  part,  or  any  opposition  on  their  OAvn.    That  it  is  an 

*  Synergism  comes  from  (rvvepyew,  to  co-operate  or  to  work  together  Avith  any  one.  The 
verb  o  -ciirs  five  times  in  the  New  Testament— e.  g.,  Mark  xvi,  20.'-  the  Lord  Avorking  with 
them."   Tlio  cognate  noun,  (rvt'epyos,  occurs  thn-teen  times— c.  i/.,  1  Cor.  iii. 9:  ''For  we  are 
workers  together  with  God." 
G  Vol.  II. 


82 


Of  Free-uill. 


unresisted  agency  in  all  cases  is  unquestionable;  that  it  is  irresistible  in  any  does 
not  appear. 

It  is  almost  incredible  that  so  great  a  man  as  Dr.  Dwight 
should  so  contradict  himself,  Scripture,  and  experience.  If  "the 
Spirit  of  God  can  do  any  thing  with  man  which  he  pleases,"  and 
if  he  wants  all  men  to  be  regenerated  that  they  might  be  saved, 
why  does  he  not  make  all  men  willing  as  well  as  some  men?  If 
his  agency  is  unresisted  in  all  cases,  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
it  is  irresistible.    Hear  him  again: 

No  volition  is  ever  excited  but  by  good;  and  by  good  actually  perceived  and 
relislied.  As  spiritual  good  is  never  thus  perceived  by  a  sinner,  it  will  not  excite 
a  single  volition  in  liis  mind  toward  the  attainment  of  it,  but  will  oi^erate  upon 
him  as  little  as  harmony  u[)on  the  deaf,  or  beautiful  colors  upon  the  blind. 

But  the  relish  for  spiritual  good  is  the  characteristic  distinction  of  holy  beings 
— their  essential  characteristic,  witiiout  which  they  would  cease  to  be  lioly.  Tlie 
want  of  it,  on  the  contrary,  is  a  primary  cha»'acteristie  of  sinful  beings.  In  tliis 
lies  thei  real  difficulty  of  regener:iting  ourselves,  and  not  in  the  want  of  sufficient 
natural  powers;  and,  so  long  as  this  continues,  an  extraneous  agency  must  be  ab- 
solutely necessary  for  our  regeneration. 

He  was  too  good  a  logician  not  to  see  that  this  infers  "  par- 
tiality in  the  conduct  of  God."  This  he  admits,  but  meets  the 
objection  with  the  stereotyped  sophism  that  God  should  not  be 
expected  to  make  all  men  alike!  AVho  ever  thought  that  he 
•  should?  But  who,  with  the  common  sentiments  of  justice  and 
humanity,  would  not  expect  him  to  furnish  every  fallen  child  of 
Adam  sufficient  assistance  to  enable  him  to  choose  life  that  he 
may  live?  To  the  objection  that  this  doctrine  supposes  man  not 
to  be  a  free  agent  in  his  regeneration,  he  brings  nothing  better 
than  the  pitiful  sophism  of  Jonathan  Edwards.    He  says: 

It  will  not  be  pretended  that  all  extraneous  influence  on  the  mind  destroys  its 
freedom.  TFe  act  upon  the  minds  of  each  other,  and  often  with  complete  efficacy ; 
yet  it  will  not  be  said  that  we  destroy  each  other's  freedom  of  acting.  God,  for 
aught  that  appears,  may  act  also  on  our  minds,  and  with  an  influence  which  shall 
be  decisive,  and  yet  not  destroy,  or  even  lessen,  our  freedom. 

Does  the  truth  of  the  objection  appear  in  the  particular  kind  of  agency  here 
used?  Let  me  ask  the  objector,  what  is  this  particular  kind  of  agency?  The  only 
account  of  the  subject  in  tlie  Scriptures  is  that  it  is  renovating,  regeneratinjr,  or 
sanctifying.  So  far  as  my  knowledge  extends,  neither  the  friends  nor  the  adver- 
saries of  the  doctrine  have  added  any  thing  to  this  accoimt  which  explains  tlie 
subject  any  farther,  But  it  can  be  said,  even  with  plausibility,  that  God  cannot 
sanctify  an  intelligent  creature  without  infringing  on  his  freedom.  If  it  be  said, 
it  s-honld  also  be  proved;  and  this,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  extends,  has  not 
hitherto  been  done.  Until  it  shall  be  done  the  mere  assertion  of  our  opponents 
may  be  fairly  answered  by  a  contrary  assertion. 


Preventing  and  Co-operating  Grace. 


83 


Wlien  God  created  man  he  created  him  in  his  own  image.  Tliis,  St.  Paul  in- 
forms us,  consists  in  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  true  holiness.  But  if  God, 
without  destroying,  or  rather  preventing,  his  freedom  of  agency,  could  create  him 
in  this  image,  it  will  be  difficult  to  prove,  or  to  conceive,  tiiat  he  cannot  restore 
to  his  descendants  the  same  image,  after  it  has  been  lost,  without  destroying  their 
freedom.  Tiie  thing  given  is  the  same,  and  the  agency  by  which  it  is  given  is  the 
same.  Its  influence  on  the  freedom  of  the  creature  must  therefore  be  exactly  the 
same.  Its  whole  influence,  in  both  cases  alike,  is  successive  to  the  agency  itself — 
and  must,  of  course,  aflfect  the  freedom  of  the  creature  in  precisely  the  same  man- 
ner. 

Does  our  experience  furnish  any  knowledge  of  this  nature?  Ask  any  Cliristian, 
and  he  will  tell  you,  if  competent  to  answer  the  question,  that  he  is  conscious  of 
no  loss  nor  ch'ange  in  his  own  freedom  of  acting;  i)ut,  on  the  contrary,  he  chose 
and  acted  in  the  same  manner  as  before,  and  with  the  same  full  possession  of  all 
his  powers;  and  that  the  only  difference  between  his  former  and  present  state  is, 
that  he  now  loves  God,  and  obeys  him  voluntarily;  whereas  he  formerly  hated 
liim,  and  voluntarily  disoDeyed  him. 

The  trutli  is,  this  objection  is  not  derived  from  revelation  nor  from  fact;  it 
owes  its  existence  only  to  the  philosophical  scheme  of  agency,  which  ra'akes  the 
freedom  of  moral  beings  consist  in  self-determination,  indiflference,  and  contingen- 
cy— a  scheme  in  its  own  nature  impossible  and  self-contradictory,  as  any  person 
may  see  completely  evinced  in  an  Inquiry  concerning  this  subject  by  the  first 
President  Edwards. 

Truly,  every  regenerate  man  is  conscious  that  lie  acted  freely 
in  the  whole  process  m  hich  resulted  in  his  regeneration ;  and  he 
is  conscious  of  it  because  it  was  so!  But  if  the  Holy  Spirit  so 
operate  upon  the  intellect  and  affections  that  the  influence  can- 
not be  resisted,  but  must  always  "  be  decisive,"  there  is  no  more 
moral  and  responsible  freedom  of  action  than  there  is  in  the  fire 
that  warms,  or  the  river  that  flows,  because  it  is  the  nature  of 
each  so  to  do.  Let  it  be  granted  that  without  the  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  no  man  can  put  forth  volitions  which  will  lead 
to  regeneration — this  is  that  for  which  we  contend — yet  it  does 
not  follow  that  any  man  is  by  that  influence  deprived  of  the 
power  of  putting  forth  contrary  volitions— call  it  "self-deter- 
mination, indifference,  contingency  " — what  you  will.  That,  and 
that  alone,  is  the  reason  why  all  men  are  not  regenerated: 

No,  we  would  not,  when  we  might. 
Be  freely  saved  by  grace. 


CHAPTER  III. 


SCRIPTURE  PROOFS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE. 
§  1.  Preliminary. 

In  proceeding  to  the  Scripture  proof  of  this  article,  it  might 
be  sufficient  to  state  that  the  simple  fact  that  God  has  made  a 
revelation  to  men  of  his  will  and  their  duty,  with  tenders  of  di- 
vine help  in  its  performance,  promises  of  reward  in  case  of  obe- 
dience, and  threatenings  of  punishment  in  case  of  disobedience, 
settles  the  question,  without  an  array  of  particular  passages. 
But  though  this  is  true,  yet  the  doctrine  in  question  may  be 
more  clearly  illustrated  and  more  firmly  established  by  the  lat- 
ter course. 

§  2.  Moses  and  the  Prophets. 

Moses  sets  the  key-note  in  Deut.  xxx.  15-20:  "  See,  I  have  set 
before  thee  this  day  life  and  good,  and  death  and  evil.  I  call 
heaven  and  earth  to  record  this  day  against  you,  that  I  have  set 
before  you  life  and  death,  blessing  and  cursing:  therefore  choose 
life,  that  both  thou  and  thy  seed  may  live:  that  thou  mayest 
love  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  that  thou  mayest  obey  his  voice,  and 
that  thou  mayest  cleave  unto  him,"  etc.  Cf,  Jer.  xxi.  8.  So 
Ezekiel,  in  that  wonderful  expostulation  of  Jehovah  with  Israel 
in  Ezek.  xviii.,  closing  wdth  this  pathetic  language:  "Eepent, 
and  turn  yourselves  from  all  your  transgressions;  so  iniquity 
shall  not  be  your  ruin.  Cast  away  from  you  all  your  transgres- 
sions, whereby  ye  have  transgressed:  and  make  you  a  new  heart 
and  a  new  spirit:  for  why  will  ye  die,  O  house  of  Israel?  For 
I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  him  that  dieth,  saith  the 
Lord  God:  wherefore  turn  yourselves,  and  live  ye."  But  did 
either  God  or  the  prophet  suppose  they  could  do  this  without 
divine  aid?  The  very  expostulation  itself  implies  preventing 
grace;  and  sanctifying  grace  is  promised  to  them  in  another 
place  by  this  same  prophet.  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25-28:  *'Then  will  I 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean:  from  all 
your  filthiness,  and  from  all  your  idols,  will  I  cleanse  you.  A 
(84) 


Scripture  Proofs  of  the  Doctrine. 


85 


new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  with- 
in you:  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh, 
and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit 
within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes,  and  ye  shall 
keep  my  judgments,  and  do  them."  Here  we  have  divine  and 
human  agencies,  preventing  and  co-operating  grace.  So  in  Jer. 
xxxi.  33;  cf  Heb.  viii.  10;  x.  15-17:  "I  will  put  my  law  in  their 
inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts;  and  will  be  their  God, 
and  they  shall  be  my  people."  So  Jer.  xxxi.  18, 19:  "Turn  thou 
me,  and  I  shall  be  turned;  for  thou  art  the  Lord  my  God.  Sure- 
ly after  that  I  was  turned,  I  repented."  What  a  striking  case 
of  co-operation  is  here! 

The  Psalter  is  full  of  examples  of  this  sort.  There  is  a  re- 
markable passage  in  Ps.  xxv.  8,  9;  ''Good  and  upright  is  the 
Lord;  therefore  will  lie  teach  sinners  in  the  way.  The  meek 
will  he  guide  in  judgment;  and  the  meek  will  he  teach  his  way." 
That  is,  those  who  with  docility  yield  to  his  gracious  influence 
will  be  sure  to  be  led  into  the  way  of  life. 

§  3.  John  vi.  44-46,  and  Parallel  Passages. 
This  corresponds  with  John  vi.  44-46:  "No  man  can  come 
unto  me,  except  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me  draw  him ;  and 
I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.  It  is  written  in  the  proph- 
ets, And  they  shall  be  all  taught  of  God.  Every  man  therefore 
that  hath  heard,  and  hath  learned  of  the  Father,  cometh  unto 
me."  Cf.  ver.  37:  "All  that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to 
me;  and  him  that  cometh  to  me,  I  will  in  nowise  cast  out."  The 
giving  here  is  the  same  as  the  drawing  in  ver.  44,  and  implies 
willingness,  docility,  and  concurrence  on  the  part  of  those  thus 
given  or  drawn.  All  who  will  consider  their  need  of  Jesus,  note 
candidly  the  proofs  of  his  Messiahship,  and  yield  to  the  influ- 
ence of  preventing  grace,  will  believe  in  him.  The  notion  of 
necessitating  grace  forcing  a  certain  elect  number  to  come  to 
Jesus,  so  that  not  one  of  them  can  fail  to  come,  and  no  one  be- 
sides can  ppssibly  come,  is  foreign  from  our  Lord's  argument, 
and  absolutely  contradictory  of  his  repeated  assertions;  for  in 
this  discourse,  as  well  as  in  the  discourses  which  precede  it, 
John  iii.-v.,  and.  those  which  follow,  John  vii.-xii.,  he  charges 
the  guilt  of  unbelief  upon  the  prejudice  and  contumacy  and 
sinister  motives  of  the  Jews;  and  threatens  them  with  conse- 


86 


Of  Free-will 


quent  punishment — which,  indeed,  is  the  current  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures.  No  one  can  be  rewarded  for  doing  what  he  cannot 
help  doing,  nor  can  any  one  be  censured  for  not  doing  what  is 
impossible.  "  Shall  come  to  me"  should  be  rendered  "  icill 
come  to  me  " — will  believe  upon  me.  No  candid,  earnest  seeker 
of  salvation  can  fail  to  find  the  Saviour;  following  his  divine 
Guide,  he  will  be  sure  to  reach  the  goal.  "  Him  that  cometh  to 
me"  expresses  volition,  action,  concurrence  with  divine  grace: 
hence  it  is  enforced  as  a  duty,  the  neglect  of  which  will  incur 
punishment,  and  the  performance  of  which  will  secure  salvation. 
The  drawing  of  the  Father  comprehends  all  that  God  does  by 
preventing  grace,  miracles,  preaching,  etc.,  to  bring  men  to 
Christ,  and  also  their  concurrent  action:  the  divine  cannot  act 
without  the  human,  nor  the  human  without  the  divine.  None 
can  come  to  Christ  without  first  being  moved  thereto,  and  en- 
abled by  grace;  and  none  will  be  so  conducted  unless  they  use 
the  grace  thus  given,  since  none  are  irresistibly  dragged  or  forced 
to  Christ,  but  drawn,  which  implies  a  voluntary  yielding,  as  the 
"  giving  "  to  Christ  implies  their  voluntary  "  coming  "  to  him. 
As  Augustin  says,  "It  is  impossible  to  believe  without  willing" 
■ — and  the  will  cannot  be  forced.  Cf.  Jer.  xxxi.  3;  Hos.  xi.  4. 
He  says  again,  "  Art  thou  not  yet  drawn?  Pray  that  thou  may- 
est  be  drawn."  The  thought,  the  sense  of  want,  "  the  imperfect 
desire,"  are  the  beginning  of  this  drawing,  which  God  will  fol- 
low up  with  "  more  grace,"  if  we  will  use  it,  and  then  the  result 
is  certain.  To  "learn  of  the  Father"  implies  application  to 
what  is  taught;  both  are  comprehended  in  the  being  taught  by 
God,  who  cannot  teach  an  unwilling  soul.  The  consequent 
coming  unto  Christ  implies  such  an  act  of  volition  as  causes  the 
soul  to  rest  in  Christ.  This  beautifully  coincides  with  his  invi- 
tation: "Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden, 
and  I  will  give  you  rest.  Take  my  yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of 
me,  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart;  and  ye  shall  find  rest 
unto  your  souls.  For  my  yoke  is  easy,  and  my  burden  is  light." 
(Matt.  xi.  28-30.)  Christ  is  "  meek  and  lowly  in  heart,"  as  a  di- 
vine teacher,  that  is  to  say,  he  is  gentle  and  patient,  not  rigor- 
ous and  overbearing,  like  the  rabbis,  in  his  instructions;  and  he 
wants  us  to  be  docile  and  pliable  to  his  teaching.  In  the  double 
use  cf  the  verb  to  learn — transitive  and  intransitive — he  will 


Scripture  Proofs  of  the  Doctrine. 


87 


learu^  us,  if  we  will  only  Iec()-)i  of  him — if  we  will  "  receive  with 
meekness — docility — the  ingrafted  word,  Y>-hicli  is  ^ble  to  save 
our  souls."  (Jas.  i.  21.)  Thus  the  Saviour  says,  "If  any  man 
wall  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether  it  be  of 
God."  (John  vii.  17.)  Here  the  verb  "  will "  is  not  a  sign  of  the 
future  tense,  but  it  denotes  volition — "will  to  do" — not  if  any 
man  should  do  it,  but  if  any  man  is  disposed  to  do  it — resolves 
to  comi^ly  with  God's  will.  This  is  a  rule  of  universal  applica- 
tion. Every  man  who  is  resolved  to  do  the  will  of  God  shall 
know  what  it  is:  he  shall  be  drawn  by  the  Father,  and  given  to 
the  Son ;  and  in  every  stage  of  his  course,  from  the  first  dawn- 
ings  of  preventing  grace  to  his  admission  into  heaven,  he  shall 
verify  all  Christ's  teachings  in  his  own  consciousness.  Cf.  John 
iii.  21;  v.  38-47;  vi.  45;  viii.  42,  47.  That  remarkable  passage, 
Eev.  iii.  20,  perfectly  agrees  with  the  foregoing  from  the  Gospel 
of  John:  "Behold,  I  stand  at  the  door  and  knock:  if  any  man 
hear  my  voice,  and  open  the  door,  I  will  come  in  to  him,  and  will 
sup  with  him,  and  he  with  me."  The  standing  and  knocking 
and  calling  and,  coming  in  and  feasting  as  a  welcome  guest  sets 
forth  preventing  and  co-operating  grace;  the  hearing,  the  open- 
ing of  the  door,  and  feasting  with  the  welcome  guest  sets  forth 
the  voluntary  concurrence  with  preventing  and  co-operating 
grace,  which,  though  iudisx:)ensable  and  pov»'erful,  does  no  vio- 
lence to  the  will. 

§4.  New  Testament  Examples. 

Thus,  when  it  is  said  the  Lord  opened  the  heart  of  Lydia,  so 
that  she  attended  unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul, 
it  is  clear  from  the  record  that  while  in  one  aspect  of  the  case 
the  Lord  opened  her  heart,  in  another  aspect  she  opened  it  her- 
self; for  she  availed  herself  of  the  opportunity  to  hear  the  gos- 
pel, listened  attentively  to  it,  yielded  with  ingenuousness  and 
docility  to  the  gracious  influence  thus  brought  to  bear  upon  her, 
and  promptly  espoused  the  cause  of  Christ. 

Thus  was  it  with  Cornelius  and  his  friends,  Acts  x.  Thus 
was  it  with  Saul  of  Tarsus,  who  responded  to  the  divine  call 
with  a  ready  will  and  purpose  to  do  as  bidden:  "Lord,  what 
wilt  thou  have  me  to  do?"    And  the  experience  of  an  awak- 


*So  the  rendering  in  the  Liturgic  Version  of  Ps.  xxv.  4,  S:  "Lead  nie forth  in 
tliy  truth  and  learn  me.    Such  as  are  gentle,  tliem  shall  he  learn  his  Avay." 


88 


Of  Frec-iciU. 


enecl,  penitent  sinner,  which  he  so  vividly  portrays,  is  evidently 
that  through  which  he  himself  passed.    (Eom.  vii.)    There  is 
co-operation  with  divine  grace,  beginning  with  the  first  glim- 
merings of  spiritual  life,  passing  through  all  the  struggles  of  the 
soul  against  the  bondage  of  sin  and  death,  to  the  triumphant 
outburst,  "  There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them  which 
are  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the 
Spirit:  for  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  hath  made 
me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death."   (Rom.  viii.  1,  2.)  This 
iugenuous  yielding  to  the  influence  of  grace  characterized  the 
Bereans,  who  "were  more  noble  than  they  of  Thessalonica,  in 
that  they  received  the  word  with  all  readiness  of  mind,  and 
searched  the  Scriptures  daily  whether  these  things  were  so  " — 
and  it  is  suggestively  and  naturally  added, "  Therefore,  many  of 
them  believed."    (Acts  xvii.  11, 12.)    Thus  was  it  in  Antioch  of 
Pisidia:  "When  the  Jews  saw  the  multitudes,  they  were  filled 
with  envy,  and  spake  against  those  things  which  were  spoken  by 
Paul,  contradicting  and  blaspheming.    Then  Paul  and  Barnabas 
waxed  bold,  and  said.  It  was  necessary  that  the  word  of  God 
should  first  have  been  spoken  to  you;  but,  seeing  ye  put  it  from 
you,  and  judge  yourselves  unworthy  of  everlasting  life,  lo,  we  turn 
to  the  Gentiles.    And  when  the  Gentiles  heard  this,  they  were 
glad,  and  glorified  the  word  of  the  Lord:  and  as  many  as  were 
ordained  to  eternal  life  believed."    (Acts  xiii.  45-48.)    The  word 
improperly  rendered  "ordained" — zzzayiihoi  —  means  disposed. 
They  were  disposed  to  enter  into  the  way  of  life,  and  did  not 
judge  themselves  unworthy  of  everlasting  life,  like  the  contuma- 
cious Jews,  who  j;ut  the  word  of  God  from  them — and  the  result 
was,  they  believed.    They  received  the  grace  of  God,  and  not  in 
vain,  but  yielded  to  it,  and  concurred  with  it,  and  thus  were  dis- 
posed to  seek  salvation — and  saving  faith  followed,  as  a  certain 
result.    "He  that  cometh  to  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and 
that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him."  (Heb. 
xi.  6.)    Thus  the  apostle  says:  "  AYe  are  unto  God  a  sweet  savor 
of  Christ,  in  them  that  are  saved,  and  in  them  that  perish:  to 
the  one  we  are  the  savor  of  death  unto  death;  and  to  the  other 
the  savor  of  life  unto  life."    (2  Cor.  ii.  15,  16.)    We  preach  the 
same  gospel,  with  the  same  accompanying  influence;  some  yield 
to  it,  and  are  saved,  while  others  scorn  the  message,  and  do  de- 
spite to  the  Spirit  of  grace,  and  are  damned.    Cf.  Mark  xvi.  15, 


Scripture  Proofs  of  the  Doctrine. 


89 


16;  2  Cor.  vi.  1,  2.  Tims  he  tells  the  Ephesians  (Eph.  ii.  8-10): 
*'  By  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith ;  and  that  not  of  yourselves: 
it  is  the  gift  of  God:  not  of  ^vorks,  lest  any  man  should  boast. 
Eor  v/e  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good 
works,  which  God  hath  before  ordained  that  we  should  Avalk  in 
them."  Salvation  is,  as  here  asserted,  the  gift  of  God;  but  then 
it  is  realized  only  through  faith,  which  cannot  indeed  be  exer- 
cised by  us  without  preventing  grace;  but  which,  on  the  other 
hand,  cannot  be  exercised  for  us  by  any  other  than  ourselves. 
God  cannot  do  the  good  works  which  he  requires  of  us,  and  w^e 
cannot  do  them  till  we  are  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus  unto 
good  works — /.  e.,  that  we  may  be  able  to  perform  them.  Peter 
sets  forth  the  same  synergistic  doctrine :  Since  ye  have  purified 
your  souls  in  obeying  the  truth,  through  the  Spirit,  unto  un- 
feigned love  of  the  brethren,  see  that  ye  love  one  another  with  a 
pure  heart,  fervently;  being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed, 
but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abid- 
eth  forever."  (1  Pet.  i.  22,  23.)  They  purified  themselves,  but 
it  was  through  the  Spirit;  they  were  to  love  the  brethren,  but 
then  they  were  to  be  born  again  in  order  that  they  might  fulfill 
the  injunction. 

§5.  Synergism  Taught  in  the  Scriptures. 
This  evangelical  synergism  is  finely  set  forth  in  Phil.  ii.  12, 13: 
"  Work  out  your  own  salvation  wdth  fear  and  trembling;  for  it  is 
God  which  worketh  in  you,  both  to.  wdll  and  to  do  of  his  good 
pleasure."    On  this  passage  Bloomfield  says: 

From  these  words,  justly  may  we  feel  encouraged  to  work  out  our  own  salva- 
tion on  the  ground  that -herein  divine  power  worketh  with  us  (and  for  us),  as  it  is 
said  in  Isa.  xxvi.  12,  "  Thou  hast  wrought  all  our  works  in  and  for  us,"  for  so  I 
would  there  render,  meaning  in  so  far  as  to  further  our  work.  On  the  other  hand^ 
however,  as  justly  may  we  feel  diffidence  in  ourselves  and  humility  toward  God, 
when  we  consider  that  God  it  is  who  worketh  in  us,  of  his  own  sovereign  will  and 
pleasure,  and  that  from  him  proceed  both  the  will  and  the  power  to  carry  the  will 
into  ivork  as  regards  our  salvation.  It  is  worthy  of  observation  that  even  Calvin, 
in  his  annotation  on  the  present  portion,  admits  that  this  is  no  place  in  which  to 
seek  the  doctrine  of  gratia  pran^eniens,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  is  it  any  suitable  in- 
strument by  which  to  "  beat  down  the  doctrine  of  free-will."  Nay,  even  Augus- 
tin  admits  as  much. 

If  this  passage  does  not  directly  teach  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
venting grace,  because  the  language  is  addressed  to  Christians 
to  stimulate  and  encourage  them  in  the  work  of  salvation,  yet  it 


90 


Of  Free-will. 


presupposes  preventing,  and  directly  inculcates  co-operating, 
grace.  Wesley,  in  his  sermon  on  this  passage,  embraces  both, 
and  tersely  says,  "God  works;  therefore  you  can  work:  God 
works;  therefore  you  must  work  " — that  is,  if  you  would  be  saved. 

The  same  synergistic  doctrine  is  inculcated  in  2  Pet.  i.  1-11, 
where  Peter  exhorts  the  believers  to  make  their  calling  and 
election  sure,  by  giving  diligence  in  the  development  of  all  the 
Christian  virtues.  They  were  made  partakers  of  a  divine  nature, 
and  had  given  to  them  exceeding  great  and  precious  promises, 
and  now  they  are  called  upon  to  add — l-ty<if)r,Yrj(7art^  supply — all 
that  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  perfect  Christian  character  in 
the  great  contest  to  which  they  were  called,  and  then  God  will 
have  ministered  unto  them — l-v/opYrfOrifTzrai^  supplied  to  them — 
all  things  necessary  for  their  triumph  at  the  end  of  their  victo- 
rious conflict.  Cf.  Jude  19-25.  Then  there  is  that  wonderful 
synergistic  passage,  Kom.  viii.  26:  "Likewise,  the  Spirit  also 
lielpetli  our  infirmities;  for  we  know  not  what  we  should  pray 
for  as  we  ought;  but  the  Spirit  itself  maketh  intercession  for  us 
with  groanings  which  cannot  be  uttered."  The  word  rendered 
"  helpeth  "  is  ^'jv«vrj/a///?«v£r«£,  which  means  "  to  take  hold  in  turn 
with  any  one,"  or  "to  lay  hold  along  with:"  hence  to  help,  as  in 
Luke  X.  40,  where  Martha  requests  Jesus  to  bid  Mary  help  her 
in  her  domestic  work.  The  Holy  Spirit  helpeth  us  to  bear  our 
infirmities,  or  strengthens  us  against  them,  as  our  Paraclete  in 
us,  Christ  being  our  Paraclete  for  us  with  the  Father.  We  can- 
not employ  the  Holy  Spirit  as  our  proxy  to  do  our  praying  for 
us,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  we  cannot  pray  for  ourselves  without 
his  assistance.  Bloomfield  says:  "The  apostle's  words  inculcate 
the  great  truth  of  the  absolute  need  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  strength- 
en our  will  both  to  work  and  to  pray  as  we  ought;  implying,  of 
course,  man's  concurrence  and  co-operation  with  the  heavenly  aid." 
Thus  the  general  sentiment  conveyed  is  parallel  to  that  in  1  Cor. 
XV.  10,  "  Yet  not  I,  but  the  grace  of  God  which  was  with  mc."  And 
with  this  our  exposition  of  the  Eighth  Article  may  well  close. 

"  Now  the  God  of  peace,  that  brought  again  from  the  dead  our 
Lord  Jesus,  that  great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep,  through  the  blood 
of  the  everlasting  covenant,  make  you  perfect  in  every  good  work 
to  do  his  will,  working  in  you  that  which  is  well-pleasing  in  his 
sight,  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  be  glory  forever  and  ever. 
Amen." 


PART  III. 


ARTICLE  IX. 

Of  the  Justification  of  Man. 

We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God,  only  for  the  merit  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  hy  faith,  and  not  for  our  own  works 
or  deservincjs:  wherefore,  that  ire  are  just  if  ed  by  faith  only,  is  a  most 
tvholesome  doctrine,  and  very  full  of  cod  fort. 

Introduction. 

This  is  word  for  word  the  same  as  Article  XL  of  the  Angli- 
can Confession,  except  that  that  adds,  "  as  more  largely  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  Homily  of  Justification."  This  Homily  is  not 
one  of  the  Twenty-one  Homilies  contained  in  the  Second  Book 
of  Homilies,  composed  by  Jewel  and  others  in  the  reign  of  Eliz- 
abeth, and  appointed  to  be  read  in  churches  in  the  Thirty- 
fifth  Article  of  the  Anglican  Confession;  nor  is  it  found  by  this 
name  in  the  First  Book  of  Homilies,  composed  by  Cranmer, 
Ridley,  Latimer,  and  others,  in  the  reign  of  Edward  YL;  but 
one  of  them  is  styled  the  *'  Homily  of  Salvation,"  which  is  that 
called  the  "  Homily  of  Justification." 

This  is  the  Homily  cited  by  Mr.  AVesley  in  his  sermon  on 
"The  Almost  Christian,"  and  also  in  his  sermon,  "The  Lord 
Our  Righteousness,"  where  there  is  this  condensed  quotation: 

Three  things  must  necessarily  go  together  in  our  justification:  upon  God's  part, 
liis  great  mercy  and  grace;  upon  Christ's  part,  the  satisfaction  of  God's  justice; 
and  on  our  part,  faith  in  the  merits  of  Christ.  So  that  the  grace  of  God  doth 
not  shut  out  the  rigliteousness  of  God  in  our  justification,  but  only  shutteth  out 
the  righteousness  of  man,  as  to  deserving  our  justification.  .  .  .  That  we  are 
justified  by  faith  alone,  is  spoken  to  take  away  clearly  all  merit  of  our  works,  and 
wholly  to  ascribe  the  merit  and  deserving  of  our  justification  to  Christ  only.  Our 
justification  comes  freely  of  the  mere  mercy  of  God.  For  whereas  all  the  Avorld 
was  not  able  to  pay  any  part  toward  our  ransom,  it  pleased  liira,  without  any  of 
our  deserving,  to  prepare  for  us  Christ's  body  and  blood,  whereby  our  ransom 
might  be  ])aid,  and  his  justice  satisfied.  Christ,  therefore,  is  now  the  righteous- 
ness of  all  them  that  trulv  believe  in  him. 

(91) 


92 


Tlie  Justification  of  Man. 


Speaking  of  the  early  Methodists  in  his  sermon  "  On  God's 
Vineyard,"  he  says: 

The  book  which  next  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  was  of  the  greatest  use  to  them  in 
settling  their  judgment  as  to  the  grand  point  of  justification  hy  faith  was  the  book 
of  Homilies.  They  were  never  clearly  convinced  that  we  are  justified  by  faith 
alone  till  they  carefully  consulted  these  and  compared  them  with  the  sacred 
writings,  i)articularly  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

It  thus' appears  that  the  omission  of  the  words,  "  as  more 
largely  expressed  in  the  Homily  of  Justification,"  was  not  on  ac- 
count of  any  objection  to  the  Homily,  but  probably  because  it 
seems  out  of  place  in  the  Confession,  especially  as  Mr.  Wesley 
knew  that  few  persons  in  America  would  have  access  to  the 
Homilies. 

The  English  Reformers  in  the  reign  of  Henry  YIII.  embraced 
the  Lutheran  view  of  justification  by  faith,  with  some  modifi- 
cations. In  the  Articles  of  1536,  justification  is  defined  as  the 
remission  of  sins  and  acceptance  into  the  favor  of  God.  This 
is  attained  by  the  mercy  and  grace  of  the  Father,  freely  for  Je- 
sus? Christ's  sake,  through  contrition  and  faith  joined  with  char- 
ity. This  is  repeated  in  the  "Institution  of  a  Christian  Man." 
But  their  doctrine  crystallized  into  a  more  scriptural  and  Prot- 
estant form  in  the  reign  of  Edward  YL,  as  seen  in  the  Homily 
of  Salvation  and  Article  XL  of  the  Confession  of  1552,  which 
reads  thus:  "Justification  by  only  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  in  that 
sense  as  it  is  declared  in  the  Homily  of  Justification,  is  a  most 
certain  and  wholesome  doctrine  for  Christian  men." 


CHAPTER  I. 

ERRORS  CONCERNING  THIS  DOCTRINE  STATED  AND 

REFUTED. 

§1.  Lutheran  Views  of  the  Doctrine. 

Luther,  as  is  well  known,  called  justification  by  faith  alone, 
articiilus  stantis  aiit  cadentis  ecclesiw — the  article  of  a  standing 
or  a  falling  Church:  with  it  the  Church  stands,  without  it  the 
Church  falls.  He  said  truly  that  justification  is  by  faith  only, 
without  holiness  or  good  worko,  because  of  the  merits  of 
Christ,  the  sole  instrument  being  faith:  this  faith  will  produce 
love  and  good  works,  but  as  justifying  it  is  considered  apart 
from  every  thing  else.  It  would  have  been  well  if  he  had 
stopped  at  this;  but  he  proceeded  to  say  that  the  sins  of  the  be- 
liever are  imputed  to  Christ,  and  that  Christ's  righteousness  is 
imputed  to  the  believer;  and  he  sometimes  seems  to  identify  as- 
surance of  personal  salvation  with  justifying  grace.  This,  with 
his  hard  speeches  against  the  law,  led  to  the  Antinomian  doctrine 
of  imputed  righteousness  and  cognate  errors.  Agricola  is  said 
to  have  pushed  this  to  its  logical  consequences,  that  it  matters 
not  what  may  be  a  man's  sins,  if  he  be  only  clothed  with  Christ's 
righteousness.  Luther  himself  earnestly  opposed  Agricola. 
Melancthon  escaped  all  these  errors.  The  Augsburg  Confession 
(Art.  IV.)  teaches:  "Men  cannot  be  justified  before  God  by 
their  own  strength,  merits,  or  good  works;  but  they  are  justified 
gratuitously  for  Christ's  sake,  through  faith — when  they  be- 
lieve they  are  received  into  favor,  and  their  sins  are  remit- 
ted on  account  of  Christ,  who  made  satisfaction  for  our  trans- 
gressions by  his  death.  This  faith  God  imputes  to  us  as  right- 
eousness." 

Melanchthon  seems  to  have  held  that  fides formcda — faith  per- 
fected by  love  and  good  works— and  not  fides  informis—o.  faith 
not  thus  informed  and  perfected  by  love,  justifies  the  soul.  And 
the  later  Lutherans  seem  to  assign  love  and  good  works  a  part  in 
justification.  But  one  may  very  well  maintain  that  faith  is 
formata,  as  it  "justifies  pregnant  with  good  works,  but  not  as  yet 

(93) 


94 


The  Justification  of  Man. 


having  given  birth  to  them."  Thus  the  Augsburg  Confession 
quotes  with  approval  the  words  of  St.  Ambrose,  Fides  honte  volun- 
tatis et  justoi  actionis  genetrix  est,  "  Faith  is  the  mother  of  good 
volition  and  just  action."  This  is  a  living,  not  a  dead,  faith, 
or  bare,  historical  assent."^ 

«  In  Dr.  Friedrich  Ueberweg's  "History  of  Philosophy"  (Vol.  I.,  p.  267)  oc- 
curs tlie  f<jllowing  remarkable  statement  bearing  immediately  on  the  distinction 
made  in  the  text:  "The  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  relation  between  faith  and  love 
was  of  a  nature  calculated  powerfully  to  stimulate  thought,  with  reference  to  the 
question  as  to  the  bond  connecting  tiiese  two  elements  of  the  religious  life.  If 
love  or  a  morally  perfect  will  is  logically  involved  in  the  conception  of  faith  (as 
may  be  inferred  from  Gal.  iii.  26;  v.  6;  Rom.  vi.  3  Beq.;  viii.  1  seq.;  1  Cor.  xiii.  3), 
and  if,  therefore,  the  justification  which  is  by  faith  means  the  divine  recognition 
of  an  essential  righteousness  contained  in  it  (i.  e.,  in  other  words,  if  the  divine 
justifying  sentence — to  follow,  as  may  be  and  has  been  done,  the  Kantian  termi- 
nology— is  an  '  ancdijtiad  judgment  respectinpr  the  suljjective  moral  quality  of  the 
believer'),  then,  on  the  one  hand,  the  necessary  connection  of  essential  moral  good- 
ness with  the  historic  and  dogmatic  elements  involved  in  faith  in  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah  and  the  Son  of  God  is  not  demonstrated,  and,  on  the  other,  we  seem 
rather  to  be  led  to  the  non-Pauline  sequence  of  faith,  beginning  of  regeneration 
and  sanctification,  and  relative  justification  in  proportion  to  the  degree  of  sanctifi- 
cation  already  attained,  than  to  the  Pauline  one  of  faith,  justification,  and  sanc- 
tification. But  if,  on  the  contrary,  faith  does  not  necessarily  involve  love  (as  may 
appear  from  Rom.  iv.  10;  x.  9,  etc.),  and  enters  only  as  a  new  statutory  element, 
a  Christian  substitute  for  Jewisli  otTerings  and  ceremonies  (/'.  e.,  if  God's  justifica- 
tion of  believers  is  only  a  {synthetic  judfjment,  an  imputation  of  another's  righteous- 
ness), then  the  improvement  of  tliewill  and  life  remains  indeed  a  thing  required, 
but  no  longer  appears  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  faith,  and  the  moral  advan- 
tage possessed  by  him  who  believes  in  the  real  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ, 
and  considers  himself  redeemed  from  guilt  and  punishment  by  the  merit  of  Christ, 
over  those  who  are  not  of  the  same  faith,  can  only  be  arbitrarily  asserted,  since  it 
is  by  no  means  verified  in  all  instances  by  the  facts  of  experience.  It  follows,  also, 
in  case  the  believing  sinner,  to  whom  righteousness  has  Ijeen  imputed,  fails  to  ad- 
vance to  real  righteousness,  that  the  divine  justification  of  the  morally  unim- 
proved believer,  together  with  tlie  condemnation  of  others,  must  appear  arbitrary, 
partisan,  and  unjust,  and  unrestricted  libertv  is  left  to  men  for  the  frivolous  mis- 
use of  forgiving  grace  as  a  license  to  sin."  fv'ithotit  denying  that  this  highly  sug- 
gestive passage  of  Ueberweg's  propounds  a  problem  demanding  exhaustive  crit- 
ical investigation  of  the  exact  forms  of  teaching  set  fortli  in  the  Pauline  Epistles, 
and  a  penetrating  insight  into,  and  a  close  sympathy  with,  the  system  of  evangel- 
ical Christianity,  for  its  satisfactory  and  final  solution,  a  few  observations  may  be 
ofFered  here  upon  the  dilemma  proposed.  (1)  It  may  be  allowed  that  "love  or  a 
morally  perfect  will  is  logically  involved  In  tlie  very  conception  of  faith,"  without 
accepting  Ueberweg's  inference  that  "the  divine  recognition  of  an  essential  pgbt- 
eousness"  is  the  ground  of  justification  from  offenses  tliat  are  past.  Ueberweg's 
view  is  here  too  exclusively  personal  and  subjective.    It  is  certainly  true  that 


Errors  Concerning  This  Doctrine  Stated  and  Refuted.  95 


§  2.  Patristic  Statements. 

It  has  been  hotly  coutested  that  the  Fathers  held  the  forensic 
view  of  j  ustification.  The  truth  is  that  they  were  not  uniform  and 
consistent  in  their  teaching  on  this  subject.  Some  of  them  did 
hold  this  view;  some  held  the  opposite  view;  and  some,  agaim 
seemed  to  vacillate  between  the  two  views.   Thus  Bishop  Browne 

genuine  contrition  for  sin  involves,  (a)  renunciation  and  abandonment  of  it;  (6) 
the  God-fearing  spirit,  or  the  recognition  of  Deity  as  the  one  offended  by  sin,  and 
an  effort  at  propitiation  by  prayer  and  abasement;  and  (c)  resohitions  and  prom- 
ises of  amendment.  Consequently  "in  every  nation,  he. that  fearetli  God  and 
worketh  rigliteousness  is  accepted  with  him."  (Acts  x.  35.)  The  prayers  and 
alms  of  Cornelius  came  up  for  a  memorial  before  God.  (Acts  x.  4.)  So  far  we 
have  a  description  of  the  personal  or  subjective  state  which,  in  a  sinner,  is  accept- 
able with  God;  and  so  far  we  have  a  diagnosis  of  the  case  equally  true  for  one 
who  has  the  knowledge  of  Christ  jind  for  one  Avho  is  in  ignorance  of  him  and  his 
salvation.  God  does  not  require  the  impossible,  and,  therefore,  the  sinner,  desti- 
tute of  the  light  of  positive  revelation  and  of  tlie  knowledge  of  his  Saviour,  but 
possessing  tliis  attitude  toward  his  sins  and  leading  this  life,  is  graciously  accepted 
without  explicit  reliance  on  the  unknown  Christ  for  salvation.  But  of  one  hav- 
ing the  knowledge  of  Christ  more  is  demanded.  We  pass  now  beyond  the  limits 
of  the  personal  and  subjective,  and  the  sinner  must  believe  the  record  which  God 
has  given  us  of  his  Son.  By  faith  he  must  accept  Jesus  Christ  as  the  propitiation 
for  his  sins,  and  the  sacrifice  of  Clirist,  instrumentally  appropriated  by  faith,  and 
by  faith  only,  is  the  ground  of  his  justification.  The  subjective  renunciation  of 
sin  and  a  perfect  will  to  all  goodness  are,  in  the  nature  of  things,  preliminary  to 
the  exercise  of  saving  Mth,  though  it  is  the  faith  only  which  justifies.  If  the  sin- 
ner stop  short  of  this  he  is  not  saved.  "When  Paul  speaks,  in  Gal.  v.  G,  of  "faith 
which  workcth  by  love"  (t/ctt/c  dt'aydrrTjc  evepyoviuv?]),  he  is,  by  common  consent, 
talking  to  backsliders.  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  xiii.,  clearly  discriminates  between  faith 
and  love.  The  former  is  the  initial  and  the  latter  the  continuous  or  abiding  Chris- 
tian virtue,  though  without  the  cessation  of  the  !brmer.  To  the  exercise  of  such 
a  living,  loving  faith  Paul  was  exhorting  the  Galatians.  If  an  historical  knowl- 
edge of  Christ  as  the  propitiation  for  sins  and  as  the  Mediator  is  then  necessary 
for  the  knowledge  of  pardon,  the  love  of  Christ  also  constrains  us  and  lea<ls  to  a 
higher  and  more  consistent  life  of  morality  and  holiness.  (2)  Ueberweg  concedes 
that  the  Pauline  ordo  sahitis  is  faitli,  justification,  sanctification ;  not  regeneration, 
faith,  justification,  as  the  Calvlnists  teach.  (3)  This  leads  us  at  once  to  notice 
that  the  second  alternative  of  his  dilemma  lies  most  heavily  against  the  mechan- 
ical imputative  theory  of  Calvinism.  Faith,  according  to  Paul  and  our  Armin- 
ian  system,  does  not  secure  "  an  imputation  of  another's  righteousness: "  this  would 
be,  indeed,  to  regard  faith  as  a  "new  statutory  element,"  and  to  make  justification 
a  "synthetic  judgment,"  arbitrarily  annexing  to  us  a  fictitious  righteousness  hav- 
ing no  possible  connection  with  our  moral  personality.  Faith,  on  the  contrary, 
appropriates,  as  a  vicarious  satisfaction  for  sin,  the  death  of  a  divinely  provided 
and  divinely  accepted  victim.  And  the  possessor  of  this  faitli  cannot  "  fail  to  ad- 
vance to  real  righteousness." — T. 


96  The  Justification  of  Man, 

cites  a  x^assage  from  Clement,  of  Rome,  the  earliest  of  the  Fa- 
thers, which  sets  forth  the  forensic  view  very  clearly.  Speaking 
of  faithful  men  of  old,  he  says: 

They  were  all  therefore  greatly  changed,  not  for  their  own  sake,  or  for  their 
own  works,  or  for  their  righteousness  that  they  themselves  wrought;  hut  through 
his  will.  And  we  also,  heing  called  by  the  same  will  in  Christ  Jesus,  are  not  jus- 
tified hy  ourselves,  neither  by  our  own  wisdom  or  knowledge  or  piety,  or  any 
works  which  we  did  in  holiness  of  heart,  but  by  that  faith  by  which  God  Almighty 
has  justified  all  men  from  the  beginning. 

Here  the  word  justify  is  used  in  the  forensic  sense,  "to  ac- 
count righteous,"  as  in  our  article,  and  not  to  make  righteous, 
according  to  the  Tridentine  definition;  and  the  instrument  of  jus- 
tification is  said  to  be  faith,  and  nothing  else.  So  that  the  quib- 
ble raised  by  Dr.  Newman,  that  the  phrase  "in  holiness  of 
heart "  means  only  "  i)iously,"  does  not  affect  the  question.  It 
is  plain,  as  Waterland  says,  and  as  Faber  admits,  that  justify- 
ing faith  is  opposed  by  Clement  "  to  evangelical  w^orks,  however 
exalted" — that  is,  as  Faber  expresses  it,  "works  performed  after 
the  infusion  of  Jioliness  into  the  heart  by  the  gracious  Spirit  of 
God."  According  to  Clement,  justification  neither  makes  us 
righteous,  nor  is  effected  by  our  righteousness.  But  as  sanc- 
tification  always  takes  place  at  the  same  time  with  justification, 
it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  Fathers  sometimes  spoke  of 
justification  as  if  it  included  the  idea  of  making  just  as  well  as 
of  accounting  just.  Thus  Chrysostom,  who  sometimes  uses  the 
word  in  a  forensic  sense,  as  in  Eom.  viii.  33:  "  It  is  God  that  jus- 
tifieth" — "For  w^ien  the  judge's  sentence  declares  us  just,  and 
such  a  judge  too,  what  signifieth  the  accuser?  "  Yet  on  Rom. 
iv.  7,  "  Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,"  he  says 
the  apostle  "  seems  to  be  bringing  a  testimony  beside  his  pur- 
pose; for  it  does  not  say.  Blessed  are  they  whose  faith  is  reck- 
oned for  righteousness.  But  he  does  so  purposely,  not  inad- 
vertently, to  show  the  greater  excellence.  For  if  he  be  blessed 
that  by  grace  received  forgiveness,  much  more  he  that  is  made 
just  and  that  manifesteth  faith." 

There  is  a  similar  anbiguity  in  Augustin.  Thus  on  the  lan- 
guage, "  The  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified,"  he  says,  "What 
is  to  be  justified  but  to  be  made  just  by  Him  who  justifies  the 
ungodly,  so  that  from  ungodly  he  becomes  just?"  He  thus  con* 
founds  that  justification  which  turns  upon  the  good  works  pro- 
duced by  faith  v/ith  that  initial  justification  which  is  solely  by 


Errors  Concerning  This  Doctrine  Stated  and  Refuted.  97 


faith.    But  he  proposes  to  interpret  it  another  way:  "Shall  be 
justified— as  if  it  were  said,  shall  be  held  and  accounted  right- 
eous; just  as  it  is  said  of  a  certain  man,  He  is  willing  to  justify 
himself— that  is,  to  be  held  and  esteemed  just." 
Barrow  well  observes : 

The  point  having  never  been  discussed,  and  those  Fathers  never  having  thor- 
oughly considered  the  sense  of  St.  Paul,  might  unawares  take  the  word  as  it 
sounded  in  the  Latin — especially  the  sense  they  affixed  to  it  signifying  a  matter 
very  true  and  certain  in  Christianity. 

No  great  harm  would  result  from  this  acceptation  of  the  word 
"justify,"  if  it  were  not  used  by  the  apostle  in  the  forensic  sense 
— that  is,  for  accounting  righteous,  pardoned;  but  great  harm  will 
result  if  it  be  held  that  none  are  pardoned  till  they  are  made 
holy,  and  that  faith  consequently  stands  for  all  the  graces  and 
virtues  which  it  produces. 

§  3.  Baptismal  Justification. 

Eomish  and  some  Anglican  divines  labor  to  show  that  the 
Fathers  held  to  baptismal  justification  as  well  as  baptismal  re- 
generation. If  justification  be  making  just,  then  it  is  the  same 
as  regeneration,  and  the  Fathers  did  sometimes  identify  regen- 
eration with  baptism,  or  speak  of  the  former  as  resulting  from 
the  latter.  But  we  must  take  into  consideration  the  inexact  and 
rhetorical  style  of  the  Fathers,  and  bear  in  mind  that  they  fre- 
quently speak  of  the  sign  as  the  thing  signified,  attributing  to 
the  former  what  they  knew  belonged  to  the  latter.  Indeed,  this 
is  sometimes  done  in  the  Scriptures,  and  that  too  in  reference 
to  baptism,  as,  for  example,  in  Eom.  vi.  3,  4,  where  it  is  said  we 
are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism  into  his  death.  This  form  of 
speech  is  employed  because  baptism  symbolizes  the  death  unto 
sin  and  the  new  birth  unto  righteousness,  and  is  a  means  and 
pledge  of  its  accomplishment,  tliough  everybody  knows  that  the 
Scriptures  recognize  faith  as  the  great  instrument  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  the  efiicacious  agent  of  its  accomplishment.  The  clause 
in  the  Nicene  Creed,  "I  believe  in  one  baptism  for  the  remission 
of  sins,"  must  be  interjDreted  in  the  same  way  as  Acts  ii.  38:  "  Ke- 
pent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  So  Mark  i.  4:  "John  did  baptize  in  the 
wilderness,  and  preach  the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remis- 
7  Vol.  II. 


98 


The  Justification  of  Man, 


sion  of  sins."  But  that  John,  as  well  as  Peter,  recognized  faith 
as  the  instrument  of  pardon  is  clear  from  Acts  xix.  4:  "John 
verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the 
people  that  they  should  believe  on  him  which  should  come  after 
him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus."  There  can  be  no  question  that 
when  an  adult  comes  to  baptism,  the  sacrament,  being  the  expo- 
nent of  faith,  is  a  means  whereby  the  end  of  faith  may  be  secured. 
But  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  the  baptism  justifies,  because  it  has 
reference  to  justification;  it  is  faith  which  justifies — not  baptism, 
which  is  the  exponent  of  faith.  This  is  what  the  Scriptures 
mean;  and  the  Fathers  mean  the  same  thing,  or  if  they  mean 
any  thing  else  they  are  no  more  to  be  regarded  than  the  modern 
asserters  of  baptismal  justification  and  regeneration. 
Bishop  Browne  says: 

If  we  take  justification  to  mean  remission  of  sins  and  admission  into  God's  favor, 
it  needs  but  very  slight  acquaintance  with  the  writings  of  the  early  Ciiristians  to 
know,  tiiat  as  tliey  confessed  their  faith  "in  one  baptism  for  the  remission  of 
sins,"  so  they  universally  taught  that  all  persons  duly  receiving  baptism,  and  not 
liindering  the  grace  of  God  by  unbelief  and  impenitence,  obtained  in  baptism 
pardon  for  sin,  admission  into  the  Christian  Church  and  covenant,  and  the  assist- 
ance of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  and  that  so  they  were  thenceforth  children  of  God, 
members  of  Christ,  and  inheritors  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Now  that  penitents  may  receive  justification  in  baptism  is  very 
clear,  and  that  baptism  may  assist  in  the  exercise  of  faith  by 
which  we  are  justified,  is  equally  clear;  but  where  one  penitent 
receives  justification  in  the'  act  of  baptism,  it  may  be  safely  said 
that  thousands  receive  it  before  baptism  (like  Cornelius  and  his 
friends),  or  after  baptism  (as  in  the  case  of  persons  baptized  in 
infancy),  or  without  baptism  (as  in  the  case  of  the  thief  on  the 
cross,  Quakers,  and  others,  who  never  received  the  rite),  while 
myriads  are  baptized  (like  Simon  Magus)  without  even  receiving 
justification  or  regeneration.  It  is  out  of  the  question,  therefore, 
to  talk  about  being  justified  by  baptism. 

§  4.  Views  of  the  Schoolmen. 

Bishop  Browne  thus  epitomizes  the  views  of  the  schoolmen: 

The  schoolmen  generally  understood  justi^cation  to  mean,  not  infusion  of  right- 
eousness, but  forgiveness  of  sins.  It  is  true  they  looked  on  it  as  the  immediate 
result  of,  and  as  inseparably  connected  with,  grace  infused;  but  their  definitions 
made  justification  to  mean,  not  the  making  righteous,  but  the  declaring  righteous. 
It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  they  denied  or  doubted  that  such  justification  sprung 
primarily  from  the  grace  of  God,  and  meritoriously  from  the  death  of  Christ. 


Errors  Concerning  This  Doctrine  Stated  and  Refuted.  99 


The  faults  charged  upon  their  system  are  that  they  looked  for  merit  de  congruo 
and  de  condigno,  that  they  attached  efficacy  to  attrition,  tliat  they  inculcated  the 
doctrine  of  satisfaction,  and  that  they  assigned  grace  to  the  sacraments  ex  opere 
opemto. 

But  this,  including  their  notion  that  sanctification  precedes  jus- 
tification, prepared  the  way  for  the  anti-evangelical  notion  of 
justification  set  forth  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  held  by  many 
High-church  divines  of  the  Anglican  Church,  as  well  as  by  the 
great  mass  of  Komish  divines.  Indeed,  some  of  the  schoolmen 
held  that  justification  did  not  merely  result  from  sanctification, 
but  also  comprehended  it.  "Thomas  Aquinas,"  says  Hagen- 
bach,  "  understood  by  justification,  not  only  the  acquittal  of  the 
sinner  from  punishment,  but  also  the  communication  of  divine 
life  {infiisio  (jratia')  from  the  hand  of  God,  which  takes  place  at 
the  same  time." 

§  5.  The  Council  of  Trent. 

These  views  of  the  schoolmen  were  put  into  a  definite  form 
by  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  made  the  authoritative  and  exclu- 
sive doctrine  of  the  Romish  Church.  Thus  the  Tridentine  Fa- 
thers in  their  Canons  of  Justification,  vii.,  viii.,  say: 

Justification  is  not  the  mere  remission  of  sins,  but  also  the  sanctification  and 
renovation  of  the  inward  man  through  the  voluntary  reception  of  grace  and  gifts 
of  grace;  whereby  an  unjust  man  becomes  just,  the  enemy  a  friend,  so  that  he  may 
be  an  lieir  according  to  the  hope  of  eternal  life.  The  only  formal  cause  of  jus- 
tification is  the  justice  of  God,  not  that  by  whicii  he  himself  is  just,  but  that  by 
which  he  makes  us  just — tliat,  namely,  by  which  we  are  gratuitously  renewed  by 
him  in  the  spirits  of  our  minds,  and  are  not  only  reputed,  but  really  are  and  are 
denominated  just,  receiving  justice  into  ourselves  each  one  according  to  his  own 
measure,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  imparts  to  each  as  he  pleases,  and  also  according 
to  each  one's  own  disposition  and  co-operation.  When  the  Apostle  asserts  that 
man  is  justified  by  faith,  and  gratuitously,  his  language  is  to  be  understood  in  that 
sense  which  the  constant  agreement  of  the  Catholic  Church  has  affixed  to  it;  in 
such  a  manner,  namely,  as  that  we  are  said  to  be  justified  by  faitli,  because  faith  is 
the  beginning  of  human  salvation,  the  foundation  and  root  of  all  justification,  with- 
out which  it  is  impossible  to  please  God.  (Heb.  xi.  6.)  And  we  are  said  to  be  jus- 
tified gratuitously,  because  none  of  these  things  which  precede  justification,  Avhether 
faith  or  works,  iperits  the  grace  itself  of  justification. 

This  shows  that  by  justification  they  mean  making  just:  not 
only  the  remission  of  sins,  but  the  sanctification  of  the  soul.  So 
in  the  anathematizing  canons  of  the  Council : 

If  any  one  shall  say  that  the  sinner  is  justified  by  faitli  alone,  in  the  sense  that 
nothing  else  is  required  which  may  co-operate  toward  the  attainment  of  the  grace 
of  justification,  and  that  the  sinner  does  not  need  to  be  prepared  and  disposed  by 


100 


The  Justification  of  Mem. 


the  motion  of  his  own  will:  let  him  be  accursed.  If  any  one  sliall  say  that  men 
are  justified  either  by  the  sole  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  or  by  the 
sole  remission  of  sin,  to  the  exclusion  of  that  grace  and  charity  which  is  shed 
abroad  in  their  hearts  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  which  inheres  in  them,  or  shall 
say  that  the  grace  whereby  we  are  justified  is  merely  and  only  the  favor  of  God: 
let  him  be  accursed.  If  any  one  shall  say  that  justifying  faith  is  nothing  but  con- 
fidence in  the  divine  mercy  remitting  sin  on  account  of  Christ,  or  that  this  faith  is 
the  sole  thing  by  which  we  are  justified:  let  him  be  accursed. 

The  Tridentine  Fathers  drew  up  these  canons  and  curses  with 
great  adroitness.  Under  cover  of  denouncing  the  Antinomian 
errors  that  we  are  passive  in  justification,  that  our  own  will  has 
nothing  to  do  with  it,  and  that  we  are  justified  by  the  sole  im- 
putation of  the  righteousness  of  Christ — meaning  his  personal 
holiness  or  obedience  to  the  law — they  repudiate  the  scriptural 
doctrine  that  we  are  justified — that  is,  pardoned — solely  for  the 
sake  of  Christ  as  the  meritorious  cause,  and  by  faith,  as  the  only 
condition  or  instrument  by  which  it  is  realized.  Faith,  indeed, 
is  not  alone  in  justification,  as  there  mast  be  penitence,  prayer, 
and  other  means  of  grace,  but  it  is  alone  in  the  act  of  justifica- 
tion— sol  a  J  though  not  solitaria. 

According  to  the  Council  of  Trent  justification  is  not  an  act 
of  God's  free  grace,  by  which,  in  view  of  our  reliance  on  the 
propitiation  of  Christ,  he  pardons  all  our  past  sins;  but  it  is  a 
subjective  process  by  which  we  are  gradually  made  holy.  Thus 
the  Council  teaches  that  those  who  are  justified, 

By  mortifying  their  fieshly  members,  and  yielding  them  as  instruments  ot 
righteousness  unto  sanctification,  through  the  observance  of  the  commands  of  God 
and  the  Church,  their  righteousness  itself  being  accepted  through  the  grace  of 
Christ,  and  their  faith  co-operating  with  their  good  works,  they  grow  and  are  jus- 
tified more  and  more.  This  increase  of  justification  the  holy  Church  seeks  when 
she  prays:  "Give  unto  us,  O  Lord,  increase  of  faith,  hope,  and  charity." 

What  is  this  but  the  process  of  sanctification?  The  Council,  of 
course,  denies  that  there  is  any  assurance  of  justification.  It  says: 

Although  it  is  necessary  to  believe  that  no  sin  is,  or  ever  has  been  remitted  ex- 
cept gratuitously  by  the  divine  mercy  on  account  of  Christ,  yet  no  one  who  af- 
firms with  confidence  and  certainty  that  his  sins  are  remitted,  and  who  rests  in 
this  confidence  alone,  is  to  be  assured  of  remission. 

If  by  this  the  Council  merely  intended  to  say  that  the  assur- 
ance of  remission  does  not  consist  in  the  confident  assertion  of 
it,  it  says  right;  but  it  is  little  to  the  purpose.  None  but  the 
wildest  Antinomian  holds  such  a  notion  of  assurance.  But  the 
Tridentine  doctrine  rules  out  assurance  altogether,  justification 


Errors  Concerning  This  Doctrine  Stated  and  Befitted.  101 


being  viewed  as  a  process  relating  to  the  future,  not  an  act  re- 
lating to  the  past.  Bossuet,  in  liis  "  Variations  of  Protestantism,", 
opposes  the  dogma  of  assurance,  because,  as  held  by  Calvinists, 
it  embraces  the  certainty  of  eternal  salvation,  final  perseverance 
being  one  of  the  corollaries  of  absolute  predestination.  Well 
he  might  discard  the  dogma  thus  distorted.  Well  might  the 
Tridentine  doctors  discard  it,  if  justification  be  a  process  of 
grace,  a  growth  in  holiness,  never  complete  until  we  close  our 
earthly  career.  We  cannot  know  that  we  are  justified  till  we 
are  justified;  and  according  to  Trent  we  are  not  justified  by  any 
particular  act  of  grace,  but  by  a  process  indefinitely  extended. 
It  is  not  objective,  but  subjective,  varying  every  hour  according 
to  our  acts  and  exercises. 

§  G.  Bellarmin's  Development  of  the  Tridentine  Theory. 

Bellarmin  develops  the  Tridentine  theory  of  justification  by 
making  it  twofold:  first,  an  infusion  of  an  inherent  principle 
of  grace  or  charity,  by  which  original  sin  is  extinguished;  and 
second,  the  good  works  resulting  from  it.  The  first  justification 
is  obtained  by  faith,  the  meritorious  cause  being  the  obedience 
and  satisfaction  of  Christ.  If  he  had  right  views  of  faith  this 
statement,  if  made  in  regard  to  regeneration  or  sanctification, 
might  pass  unchallenged.  But  Bellarmin  admits  faith  in  re- 
gard to  what  he  calls  the  first  justifipation,  only  as  fides  gener- 
alis — a  matter  of  the  intellect  and  the  first  among  many  prepara- 
tions for  justification,  according  to  the  notion  held  by  Aquinas 
of  the  "  merit  of  congruity."  This  opens  the  door  for  the  whole 
system  of  human  merit  as  held  by  Rome. 

§  7.  Merit  Excluded. 

There  is  no  preparatory  fitness  for  justification,  considered  as 
the  pardon  of  past  sin,  except  the  use  of  preventing  grace,  which 
leads  to  the  renouncing  of  sin  and  the  acceptance  of  Christ  as 
the  only  Saviour.  It  is  absurd  to  speak  of  merit  in  this  matter. 
There  is  no  merit  in  a  bankrupt  merchant's  ascertaining  his  in- 
solvency and  applying  for  the  benefit  of  the  act  for  insolvent 
debtors.  That  act,  when  its  benefits  are  realized,  does  not  make 
the  insolvent  debtor  rich ;  it  only  discharges  him  from  the  obli- 
gation of  his  past  indebtedness.  When  thus  released  he  knows 
it,  and  is  glad.  He  is  now  prepared  for  new  business  engage- 
ments.   So  the  penitent  sinner,  renouncing  all  merit  of  his  own. 


102 


The  Justification  of  Man. 


being  justified  by  faitli,  has  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  He  is  at  the  same  time  admitted  into  the  family 
of  God;  but  this  is  not  justification — it  is  adoption.  He  is  also 
born  again,  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  his  mind;,  but  this  is  not 
justification — it  is  regeneration,  initial  sanctification.  (John  i. 
12,  13;  Eom.  yi.  1-4;  viii.  1-4;  1  John  i.  9;  iii.  1-3.)  % 

§  8.  Justifying  Faith. 
The  faith  by  which  this  is  realized  is  not  merely  "  a  conviction 
of  the  truth  and  reality  of  those  things  which  God  hath  told  us 
in  the  Bible,"  but  it  is  over  and  above  that,  "  a  -saving  grace 
whereby  we  receive  and  rest  upon  Christ  alone  for  salvation,  as 
he  is  offered  to  us  in  the  gospel."  (Gal.  ii.  16;  Phil.  iii.  9.  ) 
The  intellect  assents  to  this  plan  of  salvation,  the  sensibilities 
are  aroused  and  excited  in  favor  of  it,  and  the  will  gives  its  con- 
sent; thus  the  act  of  faith  is  accomplished,  and  justification  is 
the  instant  result. 

§9.  Reconciliation  of  James  with  Paul. 

The  article  well  says,  therefore,  that  we  are  justified,  "not  for 
our  own  works  or  deservings,"  but  "by  faith  only."  Nor  is  this 
contradicted  by  James  ii.  24:  "  Ye  see  then  how  that  by  works  a 
man  is  justified,  and  not  by  faith  only." 

Voltaire  and  other  infidels  say  that  James  and  Paul  contradict 
one  another,  and  so  they  reject  both.  Luther  rashly  said  that 
James  contradicted  Paul,  and  as  Paul  was  right,  James  was 
wrong,  and  his  Epistle  "an  epistle  of  straw" — that  is,  worth- 
less. 

Pomanists  and  some  Anglicans  and  others  attempt  to  recon- 
cile Paul  with  James,  and  not  James  with  Paul.  They  say 
James  speaks  explicitly,  Paul  obscurely.  Thus  Bishop  Bull 
says:  "James  explicitly  asserts  the  doctrine  of  justification  of 
sinful  men  before  God  by  the  works  which  proceed  from  faith 
in  Christ;  Paul  simply  denies  that  sinners  can  be  justified  by  the 
works  of  obedience  to  the  law  of  Moses,  so  tliat  by  faith  he 
means  the  works  which  spring  from  faith  in  Christ."  But  what 
is  this  but  justification  by  works?  and  justification,  as  Bull  and 
his  party  teach,  means  the  same  thing  in  James  as  in  Paul's 
Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians.  John  AVesley  seems  to 
consider  it  only  necessary  to  state  Bull's  theory  in  order  t )  its 
refutation:  "  I  read  over  and  partly  transcribed  Bishop  Bull's 


Errors  Concerning  This  Doctrine  Stated  and  Refuted.  103 


'  Harmonica  Apostolica.'  The  position  with  which  he  sets  out  is 
this,  that  all  good  works,  and  not  faith  alone,  are  the  necessary 
previous  condition  of  justification,'  or  the  forgiveness  of  our 
sins.  Bat  in  the  middle  of  the  treatise  he  asserts  that  faith 
alone  is  the  condition  of  justification;  'for  faith,'  says  he,  *  re- 
ferred to  j testification,  means  all  inward  and  external  good  ^^orks.' 
In  the  latter  end  he  afiirms  'that  there  are  two  justifications, 
and  that  only  inward  good  works  necessarily  precede  the  former, 
but  both  inward  and  outward  the  latter.'"  But,  as  has  been 
often  shown,  Paul  means  by  justification  the  pardon  of  sin; 
James  uses  the  word  in  the  sense  of  giving  satisfactory  proof 
that  a  professed  believer  is  what  he  professes  to  be:  the  former 
is  by  faith,  the  latter  by  works.  Paul,  referring  to  the  time  when 
Abraham  was  justified,  or  accounted  righteous,  alludes  to  the 
period  when,  before  his  circumcision,  he  believed  God,  as  it  is 
recorded  in  Gen.  xv.  5,  G:  "And  the  Lord  said  unto  him.  So  shall 
thy  seed  be;  and  he  believed  in  the  Lord;  and  he  counted  it  to 
liim  for  righteousness."  Cf.  Eom.  iv. ;  Gal.  iii.  But  James  re- 
fers to  a  different  transaction,  one  which  took  place  some  forty 
years  after:  "  Was  not  Abraham  our  father  justified  by  works, 
when  he  had  ofi'ered  Isaac  his  son  upon  the  altar?"  (James 
ii.  21.)  Hence  he  adds:  "Seest  thou  how  faith  wrought  with  his 
works,  and  by  works  was  faith  made  perfect?  And  the  script- 
ure was  fulfilled,  which  saith,  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness:  and  he  was  called  the  friend 
of  God."  (Yer.  22,  23.)  The  offering  of  Isaac  showed  that  his 
faith  was  not  dead,  but  living  and  operative;  the  works  which 
it  produced  demonstrated  its  vitality.  Thus  the  statement  as  to 
his  justification  by  faith  in  Gen.  xv.  is  fuIf  Ued — that  is,  the  af- 
firmation is  established  or  confirmed  by  the  works  recorded  in 
Gen.  xxii.  In  a  word,  James  afiirms  that  when  Abraham  so 
signally  obeyed  God  in  offering  Isaac — the  child  of  that  promise 
which  he  believed— he  gave  undeniable  evidence  that  his  faith 
was  genuine,  and  that  he  had  been  justified  by  it;  his  works 
attested  the  vitality  of  his  faith  as  they  were  the  result  of  it. 
Instead  of  opposing  this  teaching  of  James,  Paul  corroborates 
it,  when  he  says  that  the  principle  is  of  universal  application, 
and  will  be  recognized  in  the  day  of  judgment:  "For,"  says  he, 
"not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are  just  before  God,  but  the  doers 
of  the  law  shall  be  justified,"    And  he  says  this  a  little  before 


104 


Tlie  Justification  of  Man. 


liis  descant  on  justification  by  faith.  (Eom.  ii.  13.)  Paul  has 
as  little  use  for  a  dead,  inoperative  faith,  such  as  demons  may 
have,  as  James  himself,  who  describes  such  a  vain  and  useless 
thing,  and  repudiates  it.  He  had  just  as  much  use  for  justifying 
faith  as  Paul,  because  the  faith  which  brings  pardon  brings  good 
Avorks  in  its  train:  it  worketh  by  love  and  purifieth  the  heart. 
Thus  while  we  are  justified,  that  is,  acquire  pardon  of  sin,  by 
faith,  it  is  as  the  old  divines  say,  by  faith,  which  "  is  never  alone, 
though  it  alone  justifieth;  it  is  not  solitaria,  although  it  is  sola  in 
this  work."  Thus  it  appears  that  there  was  no  reason  for  Lu- 
ther's rejection  of  the  Epistle  of  James,  as  if  it  were  opposed 
to  the  great  fundamental  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  alone,  as  there  is  a  perfect  harmony  between  the  apostles. 

The  foregoing  observations  furnish  a  sufficient  answer  to  those 
who  say  that  faith  of  an  historical  or  speculative  kind — a  mere 
assent  of  the  mind  to  the  fact  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world — is  all-sufficient  for  justifica- 
tion. To  believe  with  the  heart  unto  righteousness  is  to  exercise 
that  faith  in  Christ  which  engages  the  whole  inward  man- 
properly  signified  by  "heart" — namely,  tlie  intellect,  the  affec- 
tions, and  the  will.  It  is  needless  to  enter  into  any  argument  to 
shovv^  that  such  a  faith  is  not  dead,  but  living;  not  merely  spec- 
ulative, but  practical;  not  inactive,  but  influential  in  the  whole 
life. 

§  10.  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  Conference  of  1770. 

The  C^-lvinists  made  a  great  outcry  against  Mr.  Wesley  and 
the  Conference  of  1770,  because  they  said  that  it  is  false  that 
"a  man  is  to  do  nothing  in  order  to  justification."  "AVhoever 
desires  to  find  favor  with  God  should  *  cease  from  evil  and  learn 
to  do  well.'  "Whoever  repents  should  do  *  works  meet  for  repent- 
ance.' And  if  this  is  not  in  order  to  find  favor,  what  does  he  do 
them  for?  Is  not  this  salvation  by  works?  Not  by  the  merit 
of  works,  but  by  works  as  a  condition."  On  this  language  and 
the  objection  to  it,  Mr.  Fletcher  shows  that  it  is  agreeable  to  the 
Scriptures  and  to  the  homily  on  salvation,  and  continues:  » 

If  any  still  urge,  "I  do  not  love  the  word  condition,"  I  reply,  it  is  no  wonder, 
since  thousands  so  hate  the  thing  that  they  even  choose  to  go  to  hell  rather  than 
perform  it.  But  let  an  old  worthy  divine,  approved  by  all  but  Crisp's  disciples, 
tell  you  what  we  mean  by  condition.  "An  antecedent  condition,"  says  Mr.  Fl.-i- 
vel,  in  his  "  Discourse  of  Errors,"  "signifies  no  more  than  an  act  of  ours,  whirli, 
though  it  be  neither  perfect  in  any  degree,  nor  in  ilie  least  meritorious  of  the 


Errors  Concernmg  This  Doctrine  Stated  and  Befuted.  105 


benefits  conferred,  nor  performed  in  our  .own  natural  strengtli,  is  yet,  according 
to  the  constitution  of  the  covenant,  required  of  us,  in  order  to  the  blessings  con- 
sequent tliereupon  by  virtue  of  the  promise;  and,  consequently,  benefits  and  mer- 
cies granted  in  this  order  are  and  must  be  suspended  by  the  donor  till  it  be  per- 
formed." Such  a  condition  we  affirm  faith  to  be,  witli  all  that  faith  necessarily 
implies.    (See  Watson's  "  Life  of  AVesley,"  Chap.  XI.,  pp.  228-242.) 

The  Calvinists  raised  a  great  outcry  against  Wesley  and  the 
Conference  for  saying,  "As  to  merit  itself,  of  which  we  have 
been  so  dreadfully  afraid:  We  are  rewarded  'according  to  our 
works,'  yea,  *  because  of  our  works.'  How  does  this  differ  from 
*for  the  sake  of  our  works?  '  And  how  differs  this  from  secun- 
dum merifo  operum,  'as  our  works  deserve?'  Can  you  split  this 
hair?    I  doubt  I  cannot." 

In  the  sense  in  which  Wesley  used  the  word  merit,  and  refer- 
ing  it,  not  to  our  present  justification  or  the  pardon  of  sin,  but 
to  our  final  reward,  he  does  not  contradict  himself  nor  the  article 
on  justification,  nor  the  Scriptures,  as  Fletcher  clearly  shows. 
It  is  said  in  Matt.  xvi.  27:  "Tlie  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the 
glory  of  his  Father,  and  reward  every  man  according  to  his 
works."  And  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  iii.  11:  "  Every  man  shall  receive 
his  own  reward  according  to  his  own  labor."  Cf.  Ps.  Ixii.  12; 
Rom.  ii.  6-11;  1  Cor.  iv.  5;  2  Cor.  v.  10;  Gal.  vi.  4-9;  James  ii. 
24;  Rev.  ii.  23;  xxii.  12.  It  is  the  uniform  teaching  of  both 
reason  and  Scripture  that  the  retributions  of  the  future  will  be 
administered  precisely  in  accordance  with  every  man's  charac- 
ter and  conduct,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad.    (Matt,  xxv.) 

Fletcher  says: 

If  we  detract  from  the  word  merit  the  idea  of  "obligation  on  God's  part  to  be- 
stow any  thing  upon  creatures  who  have  a  thousand  times  forfeited  their  com- 
forts and  existence,"  if  w^e  take  it  in  the  sense  we  fix  to  it  in  a  hundred  cases — 
for  instance  this,  "A  master  may  reward  his  scholars  according  to  the  merit  of 
their  exercises,  or  he  may  not;  for  the  merit  of  the  best  exercise  can  never  bind 
liim  to  bestow  a  premium  for  it,  unless  he  has  promised  it  of  his  own  accord" — 
if  we  take,  I  say,  the  word  merit  in  this  simple  sense,  it  may  be  joined  to  the 
word  good  works,  and  bear  an  evangelical  sense.  To  be  convinced  of  it,  candid 
reader,  consider  with  Mr.  Wesley  that  God  accepts  and  rewards  no  work  but  so 
far  as  it  proceeds  from  liis  own  grace  through  the  Beloved.  Forget  not  that 
Christ's  Spirit  is  the  savor  of  each  believer's  salt,  and  that  he  puts  excellence  into 
the  good  works  of  liis  people,  or  else  they  could  not  be  good.  Remember,  he  is 
as  much  concerned  in  the  good  tempers,  words,  and  actions  of  liis  living  members 
as  a  tree  is  concerned  in  the  sap,  leaves,- and  fruit  of  the  branches  it  bears.  (John 
XV.  5.)  Consider,  I  say,  all  this,  and  tell  us  whether  it  can  reflect  dishonor  upon 
Christ  and  liis  grace  to  affirm  that  as  his  personal  merit — the  merit  of  his  holy 


106  The  Justification  of  Man. 

life  and  painful  death — "  opens  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  all  believers,"  so  the 
merit  of  those  works  which  Jie  enables  his  members  to  do  will  determine  the  pe- 
culiar degrees  of  glory  graciously  allotted  to  each  of  them. 

As,  however,  the  word  merit  in  theology  is  generally  used  in 
the  former  sense,  as  in  the  article,  where  in  the  Latin  recension 
it  is  repeated  —  "not  for  our  own  works  or  deservings"  —  non 
propter  opera  et  nierifa  nostra — it  may  be  best  not  to  use  it  in  any 
other  sense,  so  as  to  avoid  ambiguity  and  misconception  on  this 
vital  subject.    Burnet  says  (Art.  xii. ): 

The  word  merit  has  also  a  sound  that  is  so  daring,  so  little  suitable  to  the  hu- 
mility of  a  creature,  to  be  used  toward  a  Being  of  infinite  majesty  that,  though  we 
do  not  deny  but  that  a  sense  is  given  to  it  by  many  of  the  Church  of  E.ome  to 
which  no  just  exception  can  be  made,  yet  there  seems  to  be  somewhat  too  bold  in 
it,  especially  when  condifjnity  is  added  to  it;  and  since  this  may  naturally  give  us 
an  idea  of  buying  and  selling  with  God,  and  that  there  has  been  a  great  deal 
of  this  put  in  practice,  it  is  certain  that  on  many  respects  this  word  ought  not 
to  be  made  use  of. 

§11.  The  Conference  of  1771. 

But  Wesley  himself  and  his  Conference  at  the  next  session,  in 
Bristol,  August  9,  1771,  satisfied  the  Kev.  Walter  Shirley,  the 
brother  and  chaplain  of  the  Countess  of  Huntingdon  —  who 
with  their  friends  had  taken  alarm  at  the  positions  in  question — 
that  they  had  no  anti-evangelical  meaning.    They  say: 

Whereas,  the  doctrinal  points  in  the  Minutes  of  a  Conference  held  in  Lon- 
don, August  7,  1770,  have  been  understood  to  favor  "justification  by  works,"  now 
the  Rev.  John  Wesley  and  others  assembled  in  Conference  do  declare  that  we 
]>ad  no  such  meaning;  and  tliat  we  abhor  the  doctrine  of  "justification  by  works" 
as  a  most  perilous  and  abominable  doctrine.  And  as  the  said  Minutes  arc  not 
sufficiently  guarded  in  the  way  they  are  expressed,  we  hereby  solemnly  declare, 
in  the  sight  of  God,  that  we  have  no  trust  or  confidence  but  in  the  alone  merfts 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  for  justification  or  salvation,  either  in  life, 
death,  or  the  day  of  judgment.  And  though  no  one  is  a  real  Christian  believer 
(and  consequently  cannot  be  saved)  who  doeth  not  good  works,  where  there  is 
time  and  opportunity,  yet  our  works  have  no  part  in  meeting  or  purchasing  our 
justification,  from  first  to  last,  either  in  whole  or  in  part.  Signed  by  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Wesley  and  fifty-three  preachers. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  Mr.  Shirley  himself  drew  up  the  decla- 
ration, "  and  Mr.  Wesley,  after  he  had  made  some  (not  very  ma- 
terial) alterations  in  it,  readily  consented  to  sign  it,  in  which  he 
was  followed  by  fifty-three  of  the  preachers  in  connection  with 
him,  there  being  only  two  that  were  against  it." 

One  of  these  was  Thomas  Olivers,  who  refused  to  sign  it  be- 
cause it  seemed  to  oppose  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  works 


Errors  Concerning  This  Doctrine  Stated  and  Refuted .  107 


at  the  day  of  judgment.  But  Wesley  and  Lis  preachers  signed 
the  declaration  as  an  irenic  measure,  and  did  not  stumble  at 
some  expressions  which  otherwise  might  have  been  altered  for 
the  better.  But  the  declaration  does  not  contradict  the  Minutes 
any  more  than  it  contradicts  James  ii.  1-4-26,  and  other  passages 
which  favor  "the  second  justification  by  works." 

The  merit  spoken  of  in  Wesley's  Minutes  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  scholastic  and  Romish  merit  either  of  congruity  or 
condignity,  as  the  justification  by  works  has  no  reference  to  jus- 
tification by  faith,  which,  as  has  been  seen,  is  simply  the  for- 
giveness of  sins.  So  far  as  merit  in  the  proper  sense,  meaning 
desert,  is  concerned,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  creature,  es- 
pecially a  poor,  fallen,  redeemed  creature,  like  man,  can  deserve 
any  thing  from  his  Creator;  for  our  Lord  says,  "When  jq  shall 
have  done  all  those  things  which  are  commanded  you,  say.  We 
are  unprofitable  servants:  we  have  done  that  which  was  oar  duty 
to  do."  (Luke  xvii.  10.  Cf.  Job  xxii.  3;  xxxv.  7;  Ps.  xvi.  2;  Eom. 
vi.  23;  xi.  35.)    In  this  sense  C.  Wesley  teaches  us  to  sing: 

Freedom  and  grace  and  heaven  to  buy, 
My  bleeding  sacrifice  expired. 

We  all  are  forgiven  for  Jesus'  sake, 

Our  title  to  heaven,  his  merits  we  take. 
But  this  is  perfectly  compatible  with  the  doctrine  of  our  sec- 
ond justification  by  works,  and  by  the  merit  of  these,  in  the  sense 
explained  by  Fletcher  and  intended  by  Wesley.    The  iwiw  doc- 
trines are  sharply  set  forth  in  the  following  lines  by  C.  Wesley: 

Close  followed  by  their  works  they  go, 
*  Their  Master's  purchased  joy  to  know; 
Their  works  enhance  the  bliss  prepared, 
And  each  hath  its  distinct  reward. 

Yet  glorified  by  grace  alone 
They  cast  their  crowns  before  the  throne; 
And  fill  the  echoing  courts  above 
With  praises  of  redeeming  love. 

§12.  Universality. 

Tliose  w^ho  believe  in  the  universality  of  the  atonement  of 
course  believe  in  the  universality  of  justification,  that  is,  as 
Knapp  explains  it,  "all  must  be  able  to  obtain  the  actual  for- 
giveness of  their  sins  and  blessedness  on  account  of  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ."  He  says  justification  is  universal  in  respect  to 
the  persons  to  be  pardoned,  and  in  respect  to  sins  and  the  pun- 


108 


The  Justification  of  Man. 


isbment  of  sin.  He  very  properly  explains  the  first  thus:  "All 
men  may  partake  of  this  benefit;  it  was  designed  for  all.  (Rom. 
iii.  23;  v.  15.)  It  is,  however,  bestowed  conditionally.  Those 
who  do  not  comply  with  the  conditions  are  not  justified.  It  is 
not,  therefore,  -universal  in  effect,  and  this  solely  through  the 
fault  of  man."  This  is,  as  he  says,  opposed  to  Jewish  exclusive- 
ness  and,  it  may  be  added,  Calvinistic  exclusiveness  too,  as  well 
as  to  Universalist  latitudinarianism,  which  makes  it  actually  as 
well  as  provisionally  universal.  None  are  pardoned  but  believ- 
ers. 

The  universality  in  respect  to  sins  and  the  punishment  of  sin 
is  shown  in  that  all  sins,  without  exception,  are  forgiven  to  those 
who  comply  with  the  jjrescribed  conditions.  ( Ezek.  xviii.  21,  22; 
Ps.  ciii.  3;  2  Cor.  vi.  11;  Eph.  ii.  5;  1  Tim.  i.  15.  )  Dr.  Knapp 
says,  "  The  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  cannot  be  considered  an 
exce^jtion."    In  respect  to  the  punishment  of  sin  he  says: 

Justification  is  plena  et  perfecta — full  and  perfect.  The  natural  and  physical 
evils  which  result  from  sin  remain  in  this  life,  though  modified  and  mitigated  to 
those  who  are  pardoned,  as  there  is  a  cessation  of  the  moral  evils  which  result 
from  sin.  The  positive  punishments  of  sin  are  entirely  removed,  and  there  is  the 
expectation  of  positive  divine  rewards,  and  the  full  enjoyment  of  them  in  the 
life  to  come. 

§  13.  Terminism. 

This  universality  refers  also  to  what  the  Scriptures  uniformly 
teach,  that  the  possibility  of  forgiveness  extends  through  the 
whole  life  of  man. 

And  while  the  lamp  holds  out  to  burn, 
The  vilest  sinner  may  return. 

God  has  drawn  no  arbitrary  line  like  that  suggested  in  a  pop- 
ular hymn:  "There  is  a  time  we  know  not  when,"  While  there 
is  life  there  is  hope,  and  may  be  pardon.  It  is  true,  however, 
that  men  may  so  habituate  themselves  to  sin  as  to  make  it  moral- 
ly impossible  for  them  to  comply  with  the  terms  of  forgiveness. 
(Jer.  xiii.  23.)  Hence  it  is  madness  to  defer  compliance  to  a 
future  day  and  to  the  hour  of  death.  But  as  justification  is  the 
pardon  of  sins  that  are  past,  and  that  pardon  is  conferred,  not 
through  the  sinner's  merit,  but  through  the  merit  of  Christ,  we 
may  still  sing  with  Wesley: 

Whene'er  the  wicked  man 

Turns  from  his  sins  to  thee, 
His  late  repentance  is  not  vain, 
He  shall  accepted  be. 


Errors  Concerning  This  Doctrine  Stated  and  Befitted.  109 


This  question  belongs  to  what  is  called  the  "  Terministic  con- 
troversy," on  which  Knapp  says  ("  Christian  Theology,"  p.  398): 

The  frequent  perversion  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  gave  rise,  at  the  end  of 
the  seventeenth  and  commencement  of  the  eigliteenth  century,  to  the  terministic 
controversy.  Joh.  Ge.  Bose,  a  deacon  at  Sorau,  in  endeavoring  to  avoid  one  ex- 
treme, fell  into  another.  He  held  that  God  did  not  continue  to  forgive,  even  to 
the  last,  such  persons  as  he  foresaw  would  harden  themselves  in  impenitence,  but 
that  lie  established  a  limit  of  grace  (terminum  gratice  sive  salads  peremptorium),  to 
which,  and  no  furtlier,  he  would  afford  them  grace  for  repentance.  He  appealed  to 
tlie  texts  which  speak  of  God  as  hardening  or  rejecting  men,  some  of  which  have  no  ref- 
erence to  conversion  and  forgiveness,  and  some  of  which  are  erroneously  explained 
by  him.  Ad.  Rechenberg,  at  Leipsic,  and  others,  assented  to  this  opinion,  though 
with  tlie  best  intentions.  But  Ittig,  Fecht,  Neumann,  and  many  others,  opposed 
this  opinion,  and  wrote  against  the  work  of  Bose,  "  Terminus  peremptorius  salutis 
hunmnce,'^  and  against  Rechenberg.  They  were  in  tlie  right.  Tliis  opinion  is 
not  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  is  calculated  to  lead  the  doubting  and 
anxipus  to  despair,  and  to  place  them,  as  many  sorrowful  examples  teach,  in  the 
most  perilous  condition,  both  as  to  soul  and  body,  especially  on  the  bed  of  death. 

The  doctrine  that  repentance  and  holiness  are  the  meritorious  ground  of  salvation 
would  have  equally  terrible  consequences.  According  to  this  doctrine  we  should 
be  compelled  to  deny  all  hope  of  salvation  to  one  who  had  lived  an  impenitent 
sinner  till  the  last  part  of  his  life — which  the  Bible  never  does,  and  which  is  in 
itself  cruel.  The  conscience  even  of  the  good  man  must  say  to  him  on  his  death- 
bed that  his  imperfect  virtues  are  insufficient  to  merit  heaven.  In  neither  of 
these  instances,  then,  would  there  be  any  consolation;  but  despair  would  be  the 
result  of  this  doctrine  in  both. 

Dr.  Knapp  is  right  in  this  view,  which  is  also  held  by  Mr. 
"Watson.    In  his  sermon  on  Luke  xix.  42  he  says: 

AVhen  men  willfully  hide  their  eyes  from  the  things  which  belong  to  their 
peace,  there  comes  a  twofold  judicial  hiding  from  them  on  the  part  of  God.  The 
first  is  partial  and  temporary.  .  .  .  But  the  second  case  of  judicial  hiding  is 
final  and  eternal.  I  do  not  think  that  this  takes  place  before  death;  at  least  I 
see  no  scriptural  authority  for  such  an  opinion ;  and  no  man,  therefore,  has  the 
right  to  say  sq.    (Sermons,  Vol.  ii.,  pp.  212,  213.)  * 

§  14.  Apostates  Answerable  for  All  Their  Sins. 

Knapp  will  not  say  that  though  apostates  forfeit  their  justifi- 

*  For  a  more  elaborate  discussion  of  this  doctrine  see  an  article  entitled  "Ter- 
minism,"  by  Dr.  Summers,  in  the  Southern  3Tethodist  Quarterly  Review  for  April,  18S0, 
pp.  o07-316.  A  chief  text  greatly  relied  upon  by  terminists  is  Hosea  iv.  17: 
"  Ephraim  is  joined  to  idols:  let  him  alone."  Upon  this  text  that  sound  exegete. 
Dr.  Cowles,  comments  as  follows:  "  *  Let  him  alone,'  cannot,  in  this  connection,  be 
the  declaration  of  God's  purpose  to  abandon  Ephraim  and  withdraw  his  spirit,  as 
has  been  supposed  by  some;  but  is  God's  command  to  Judah  to  desist  from  all  so- 
ciety with  Ephraim,  and  leave  him  to  sin  and  suffer  alone.  The  general  course  of 
thought  in  the  context,  as  well  as  the  phrase  itself,  requires  the  latter  construction." 
See  Dr.  Summers's  exposition  of  this  and  other  scriptures  in  his  article. — T. 


110 


The  Justification  of  Man. 


cation  and  consequent  blessings,  and  are  punished  more  severely 
than  other  sinners,  they  are  chargeable  with  the  sins  of  which 
they  were  formerly  pardoned.  He  says  there  is  no  reason  why 
they  should  be  so  imputed,  and  such  is  not  the  case  in  human 
courts.  The  texts  he  cites  will  not  bear  him  out,  namely,  those 
which  speak  of  sins  being  blotted  out,  and  no  more  remembered, 
as  Ezek.  xviii.  22;  xxxiii.  16;  Ps.  ciii.  11,  12;  and  those  that  say 
the  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance— that  is, 
God  will  not  recall  the  gifts  he  has  bestowed — Rom.  xi.  29:  a 
text  which  can  have  no  beainng  on  the  subject,  as  may  be  seen 
by  the  context.  The  passages  cited  from  Psalms  and  Ezekiel 
refer  to  penitent  pardoned  sinners,  and  obviously  mean  that  as 
such  their  sins  shall  no  more  be  remembered,  that  is,  they  shall 
not  be  punished  for  them.  But  if  they  apostatize  they  forfeit 
their  justification,  which  is  the  non-punishment  of  sin,  just  as 
the  good  works  performed  before  their  apostasy  "shall  not  be 
remembered.*'  (Ezek.  xx:xiii.  13.)  This  is  inculcated  by  our 
Lord's  parable  of  the  merciless  servant.  Matt,  xviii.  23-35.  His 
ten-thousand-talent  debt  had  been  forgiven,  but  because  of  his 
cruelty  to  a  fellow-servant  the  act  of  forgiveness  was  canceled. 
"And  his  lord  was  wroth,  and  delivered  him  to  tlie  tormentors 
till  he  should  pay  all  that  was  due  unto  him."  Jesus  himself 
applies  the  parable:  "So  likewise  shall  my  heavenly  Father  do 
also  unto  you,  if  ye  from  your  liearts  forgive  not  every  one  his 
brother  their  trespasses." 
Bengel  says: 

His  sins  [thor.gli  forgiven,  ver.  27]  are  again  reckoned  to  him  on  the  ground 
of  the  inexhaustible  claim  of  God  upon  his  servants. 

Whitby: 

The  doctrinal  observation,  which  truly  seems  to  be  inferable  from  this  text,  is 
this:  that  sins  once  forgiven  may,  by  our  forfeiture  of  that  pardon  by  our  misde- 
meanors, be  again  charged  upon  us;  for  after  this  lord  had  forgiven  his  servant 
the  whole  debt  (ver.  27),  he  being  angry  with  him  for  his  unmerciful  deportment 
toward  his  fellow-servant,,  delivers  him  to  the  tormentors  till  he  should  pay  all 
that  was  due  to  him  (ver.  34);  and  then  it  follows,  So  likewise  will  my  heavenly 
Father  do  to  you  (ver.  35).  The  conclusion  from  this  place,  saith  Dr.  Hammond, 
is  this:  that  God's  pardons  in  this  life  are  not  absolute,  but  according  to  the  pe- 
titions of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  answereth  to  our  dealings  with  others,  and  so  con- 
ditional, and  are  no  longer  likely  to  be  continued  to  us  than  we  perform  the 
condition. 

Wesley : 

His  pardon  was  retracted,  the  whole  debt  required,  and  the  offender  delivered 


Erro)'s  Concerning  This  Doctrine  Stated  and  llefuted.  Ill 


to  the  tormentors  forever.  And  shall  we  still  say,  Bat  when  we  are  once  freely 
and  fully  forgiven,  our  pardon  can  never  be  retracted?  Verily,  verily,  I  say  un- 
to you,  so  likewise  will  my  heavenly  Father  do  to  you,  if  ye  from  your  hearts 
forgive  not  every  one  his  brother  their  trespasses. 

Wliedoii : 

The  king  imprisons  hira  for  tiie  debt  which  he  had  at  first  forgiven.  The  old 
forgiven  sin  of  the  apostate  sinner  springs  up  anew  and  condemns  him.  A  man 
is  finally  punished  for  all  the  sins  of  his  life.  It  helps  him  not  one  jot  that  at 
one  time  he  was  pardoned,  but  rather  aggravates  his  case. 

Bitif  ul  is  the  subterfuge  that  no  such  case  as  this  ever  occurs  in 
"the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  God  molds  the  hearts  and  wills  of 
all  whom  he  pardons  into  a  temper  and  disposition  resembling 
his  own."  (AVebster  and  Wilkinson.)  If  this  means  any  thing 
to  the  purpose,  it  means  that  one  who  is  pardoned  can  never  sin 
again.  Peter  was  mistaken  when  he  said  that  certain  apostates 
had  forgotten  that  they  Avere  purged  from  their  old  sins,  and 
that  the  latter  end  is  worse  with  them  than  the  beginning.  (2 
Pet.  i.  9;  ii.  20-22.)  Ezekiel  too  was  grossly  mistaken  when  he 
says  repeatedly  and  solemnly,  or  rather  God  t)y  him:  "  When  the 
righteous  turneth  away  from  his  righteousness,  and  committetli 
iniquity — shall  he  live?  All  his  righteousness  that  he  hath  done 
shall  not  be  mentioned;  in  his  trespass  that  he  hath  trespassed, 
and  in  his  sin  that  he  hath  sinned,  in  them  shall  he  die," 

§15.  Conclusion. 
Thus  this  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  is  "  a  most  whole- 
some doctrine  " — saluherrima — guarded  at  every  point,  from  all 
Pharisaic  and  Antinomian  errors,  "and  very  full  of  comfort" — 
ac  consoled iom's  plenissima — as  it  assures  to  every  penitent  be- 
liever in  Christ,  who  perseveres  to  the  end,  peace  with  God  in 
the  present  world,  and  a  glorious  reward  in  the  world  to  come. 


CHAPTER  IT. 


CATHOLIC  AND  EVANGELICAL  CHARACTER  OF 
THIS  DOCTRINE. 

This  article  corresponds  with  the  Tenth  Article  of  the  Creed, 
and  the  fifth  petition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer;  and  they  mutually 
explain  each  other. 

§  1.  Priestly  Pardons. 

When  we  say  in  the  Creed,  "  I  believe  in  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,"  we  do  not  mean  that  the  priest  forgives  sins.  Indeed,  there 
is  no  priest  in  the  New  Testament  Church  except  the  great  High- 
priest  of  our  profession,  and  as  all  believers  are  kings  and  priests 
to  God.  The  word  priest,  even  as  an  abridgment  of  presbyter,  is 
never  used  for  the  elder,  or  bishop,  as  a  minister  of  the  Church, 
in  the  New  Testament;  while  fr^svc,  which  means  one  who  offers 
sacrifice  and  performs  other  sacerdotal  rites,  is  never  used  to 
designate  a  minister  of  the  Church,  not  even  an  apostle.  Where, 
then,  there  are  no  priests  there  can  be  no  priestly  pardons. 
But  it  is  replied  that  our  Lord  said  to  the  apostles,  "  Whoseso- 
ever sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them ;  and  whosesoever 
sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."  True,  he  did  so  address  the 
apostles.  Here  is  the  entire  passage;  it  occurs  in  the  narrative 
of  our  Lord's  appearance  to  the  apostles  on  tlie  evening  of  the 
day  on  which  he  rose  from  the  dead,  John  xx.  21-23:  "  Then  said 
Jesus  unto  them.  Peace  be  unto  you:  as  my  Father  hatli  sent  me, 
even  so  I  send  you.  And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on 
them,  and  saith  unto  them,  Pteceive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whose- 
soever sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them;  and  whoseso- 
ever sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."  This  breathing  on  them, 
with  the  language  accompanying  it,  was  a  guarantee  and  perhaps 
a  foretaste  of  the  endowment  from  on  high,  which  took  place  on 
the  Day  of  Pentecost,  and  whicli  qualified  them  for  their  office 
and  work  as  apostles,  as  the  infallible  and  authorized  represent- 
atives of  their  Lord  in  establishinnr  his  kingdom  and  setting 
forth  its  constitution  and  laws.  What  thpy  set  forth  on  earth, 
as  the  conditions  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  was  confirmed  in 
(112) 


Catholic  and  Evangelical  Character  of  This  Doctrine.  113 


heaven,  because  they  acted  under  the  plenary  infiuences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  By  consulting  the  Acts  and  Epistles  of  the  apos- 
tles we  may  see  what  those  conditions  are,  namely,  "  Repentance 
toward  God,  and  faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (Acts  xx. 
21.)  "  Being  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace  with  God,  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (Rom.  v.  1.)  "Be  it  known  unto  you 
therefore,  men  and  brethren,  that  through  this  man  is  preached 
unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins :  and  by  him  all  that  believe  are 
justified  from  all  things,  from  which  ye  could  not  be  justified  by 
the  law  of  Moses."  ( Acts  xiii.  38,39.)  "  In  whom  we  have  redemp- 
tion through  his  blood,  tbe  forgiveness  of  sins  according  to  the 
riches  of  his  grace."  (Eph.  i.  7.)  This  is  in  precise  accordance 
with  our  Lord's  reiterated  statements.  (John  iii. ;  vi. ;  Mark  xvi. 
16;  Luke  xxiv.  46,  47.)  The  New  Testament  is  full  of  this  doc- 
trine. But  there  is  not  a  single  line  of  Holy  Writ  which  inti- 
mates any  thing  about  "the  tribunal  of  penance,"  "auricular 
confession,"  "  sacerdotal  absolution,"  "  penitential  satisfaction  for 
sins,"  and  the  like:  not  a  syllable. 

That  the  inspired  apostles,  who  had  the  charism,  or  miraculous 
endowment,  of  discerning  spirits,  could  in  special  cases  pro- 
nounce infallibly  concerning  the  reality  of  a  man's  faith,  and 
consequent  forgiveness,  is  true,  and  this  may  be  embraced  in  the 
prerogative  in  question.  But  what  priest,  prelate,  or  pope,  has 
that  endowment? 

We  admit  that  God  "  hath  given  power  and  commandment  to 
his  ministers  to  declare  and  pronounce  to  his  people,  being  pen- 
itent, the  absolution  and  remission  of  their  sins,"  so  that  they 
can  say,  as  in  the  form  of  absolution  in  the  English  Liturgy, 
"  He  pardoneth  and  absolvetli  all  them  that  truly  repent,  and  un- 
feignedly  believe  his  holy  gospel."  Bat  we  regret  that  the 
rubric  reads:  "The  Absolution  or  Remission  of  sins  to  be  pro- 
nounced hi/  the  Iciest  alone,  standing;  the  people  still  kneeling." 
The  punctuation — copied  from  the  edition  of  1662,  which  is  con- 
sidered authentic — which  has  the  comma  after  the  word  "  alone," 
shows  that  it  does  not  merely  qualify  the  word  "  standing  " — the 
posture  of  the  minister,  the  people  kneeling— but  that  it  restricts 
its  pronunciation  to  the  priest — none  others,  not  even  a  deacon 
being  allowed  to  pronounce  the  awful,  sacerdotal  words.  Ac- 
cordingly, on  "The  Ordering  of  Priests,"  the  Bishop  is  in- 
structed to  say,  "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  and  work 
8  Vol.  II. 


114 


The  Just/Jication  of  Man. 


of  a  priest  in  the  Church  of  God,  now  committed  unto  thee  by 
the  imposition  of  our  hands.  AVhose  sins  thou  dost  forgive,  they 
are  forgiven;  and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain,  they  are  retained." 

We  are  aware  that  tlie  Evangelical  party  in  the  Church  of  En- 
gland interpret  this  formula  in  a  non-popish  sense;  but  the  High- 
church  party  have  always  contended  that  it  means,  and  was  in- 
tended to  mean,  that  by  the  act  of  ordination,  the  functionary  is 
made  a  priest — not  merely  a  -f^efrfiOrefjo^  but  a  Upso^  having  the 
sacerdotal  prerogative  of  absolving  penitents,  as  claimed  by  the 
priests  of  Rome.  The  best  that  can  be  said  for  this  use  of  the 
words  in  question  is  said  by  Bloomfield  in  his  note  on  John  xx.  23: 

In  these  words  our  Lord  formally  confers  on  liis  apostles — and  through  them 
on  tlie  ministers  of  the  gospel  in  every- age — authority  to  certify  those  who  should 
embrace  the  ofler  of  the  gospel  lliat  tlielr  sins  were  forgiven  them,  and  to  declare 
to  those  who  should  reject  that  offer  that  they  were  still  under  the  guilt  and  con- 
demnation of  sin.  Though  intended  principally  for  the  apostles,  yet  it  must  be 
meant  to  be  extended  to  those  wlio  should  succeed  them  in  carrying  on  the  same 
IkjIv  work.  In  the  full  belief  that  the  authority  here  given  was  not,  as  some 
siiy,  limited  hy  our  Lord  to  the  first  ministers  of  the  gospel,  but  that  it  belongs  to 
those  who  are  duly  appointed  to  the  same  ministry,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world  (Matt,  xxviii.  20),  the  Church  of  England,  in  the  Form  for  the  Ordination 
of  Priests,  uses  tlie  form  of  words  recorded  in  this  and  the  preceding  verse  as 
having  been  used  by  our  Lord  for  the  purpose;  so  that  those  who  are  thus  law- 
fully appointed  are  fully  authorized  to  j)ronounce  (for  the  terms  a(l)i'/rE  and  Kparrjre 
are  to  be  taken  declarativehj)  forgiveness  of  sins,  or  the  contrary.'-'    I  agree  with. 

*  Wheatly  differs  frona  this  view.  He  says:  "  Wherever  else  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament we  meet  with  the  word  a^/rz/ii  (which  we  render  remit  in  the  text),  applied 
to  sins,  as  it  is  here  it  is  constantly  used  to  express  the  remission  and  forgiveness 
of  them,  or  the  entire  putting  them  away;  and  therefore  the  use  of  the  same 
terms,  in  the  text  1  am  speaking  of,  inclines  me  to  interpret  the  commission  there 
given  of  a  power  to  remit  sins,  even  in  relation  to  God;  insomuch  that  those  sins 
which  the  apostles  should  declare  forgiven  by  virtue  of  this  commission  should  be 
actually  forgiven  by  God  himself,  so  as  to  be  imputed  no  more."  But  he  thinks 
this  power  belonged  to  them  in  the  same  way  as  that  of  miraculous  healing.  He 
refers  to  what  our  Lord  said  to  the  paralytic  when  he  healed  him:  "Thy  sins  be 
forgiven  thee."  (^fatt.  ix.  2  jj.)  But  we  never  read  of  the  apostles  thus  address- 
ing those  whom  they  healed,  or  any  others.  Wheatly  refers  to  James  v.  14,  lo, 
but  that  only  says,  "  The  prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick,  and  if  he  have  com- 
mitted sins  they  shall  be  forgiven  him" — a  very  different  matter.  The  apostles 
bound  and  loosed  offenders  and  penitents  in  regard  to  Church  censures.  (1  Cor, 
V.  4-G;  2  Cor.  ii.  10;  1  Tim.  i.  ^0;  ef.  Matt.  xvi.  18,  10;  xviii.  18.)  In  passing, 
we  may  express  our  regret  at  the  Jesuitical  way  in  which  the  language  of  James, 
"  Confess  your  faults  one  to  another,  and  pray  for  one  another  that  ye  may  be 
healed,"  is  made  to  refer  to  aiiricular  confession  to  a  priest — "  the  apostle's  advice 
to  call  for  the  elders  of  the  Church,  and  to  confess  our  faults,  in  order  to  engage 
their  fervent  prayers." 


Catholic  and  Ecangelical  Character  of  This  Doctrine.  115 


Mr.  Alford,  that  "the  gift  belongs  to  those  who  are  lawfully  sent  to  minister  in 
the  churches;  not,  however,  by  successive  delegation  from  the  apostles — of  which 
there  is,  in  the  New  Testament  at  least  no  trace — but  by  their  mission  from 
Christ,  the  Bestower  of  the  Spirit  for  their  office,  when  orderly  and  legiiimalely  con- 
ferred upon  them  by  the  various  churches." 

That  is  liberal — coming  from  learned  Anglican  ministers.  It 
^  pleases  us  to  see  them  thus  unequivocally  repudiate  the  Apos- 
tolical succession — so  called.  All  ministers  who  have  a  divine 
call  to  their  work  in  "  the  various  Churches  " — Episcopal,  Pres- 
byterian, Congregational,  or  others— have  the  authority  to  pro- 
nounce this  absolution.  But  may  not  every  Christian,  lay  or 
clerical,  male  or  female,  do  the  like — though  not  in  an  official  ca- 
pacity? Will  the  words  fail  of  their  effect  when  pronounced 
by  a  layman  to  a  poor  penitent  sinner  inquiring  the  way  of  sal- 
vation? We  trust  not;  and  the  experience  of  thousands  con- 
firms our  verdict. 

But  if  the  compilers  of  the  Liturgy  are  to  be  allowed  to  ex- 
plain their  own  language,  we  fear  a  less  evangelical  meaning  is 
to  be  attached  to  it  than  Bloomfield  and  Alford  suppose.  In 
"the  Order  for  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick,"  Ave  find  the  following 
Rubric  and  Form  of  Absolution: 

Then  shall  the  sick  person  be  moved  to  make  a  special  confession  of  his  sins, 
if  he  feels  liis  conscience  troubled  with  any  weighty  matter.  After  which  confes- 
sion, the  priest  sliall  absolve  him  (if  he  liumbly  and  herfrtily  desire  it)  after  this 
sort:  "Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  wdio  hatli  left  power  to  his  Church  to  absolve  all 
sinners  who  truly  repent  and  believe  in  him,  of  his  great  mercy  forgive  thee  thine 
offenses;  and  by  his  authority  committed  to  me,  I  absolve  thee  from  all  thy  sins, 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Amen." 

Wheatly  and  others  consider  this  absolution  judicial  only  in 
regard  to  "ecclesiastical  censures  and  bonds,"  and  say,  "It  looks 
as  if  the  Church  did  only  intend  their  remission,"  as  the  succeed- 
ing collect  prays  for  the  pardon  and  forgiveness  of  sins  commit- 
ted directly  against  God.  "As  to  the  pardon  of  God,  and  applying 
it  directly  to  the  sinner's  conscience,"  says  Wheatley,  "the  power 
of  the  priest  is  only  ministerial  Wliy  then  was  not  this  distinc- 
tion stated  in  the  rubric,  the  absolution,  or  the  collect?  Wheat- 
ly's  exposition  of  this  subject  is  learned,  labored,  self-contra- 
dictory, and  unsatisfactory.  The  revisers  of  the  Prayer  Book 
for  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  did 
well  to  omit  this  absolution,  and  those  who  wish  it  restored 
mean  ill.    They  want  the  Bomish  confessional  smuggled  into  a 


116 


The  Jasiification  of  Man. 


so-called  Protestant  Church— a  title,  by  the  way,  which  they 
cordially  detest,  though  it  is  their  legal  designation. 

As  the  article  on  the  forgiveness  of  sins  follows  that  on  the 
Church,  some  say  that  this  remission  is  received  in  the  Church 
first  by  baptism,  and  afterward  by  repentance.  But  we  have 
elsewhere  discussed  this  question." 

§  2.  The  Creed  and  the  Lord's  Prayer. 

The  forgiveness  of  sins  Vviiich  we  profess  in  the  Creed  is  the 
justification  which  is  confessed  in  this  article.  "  Who  can  for- 
give sins  but  God  only?"  If  "the  Son  of  man  hath  power  on 
earth  to  forgive  sins,"  it  is  because  he  is  God  as  well  as  man. 
(Mark  ii.  3-12.)  "  I,  even  I,  says  Jehovah,  am  he  that  blottetii  out 
thy  transgressions  for  mine  own  sake,  and  will  not  remember 
thy  sins."  (Isa.  xliii.  25.)  "It  is  God  that  justifieth."  (Eom. 
viii.  33.)  On  what  terms  and  by  what  instrumentality  he  does 
this,  we  have  already  seen  and  the  article  explicitly  states. 

This,  as  we  have  intimated,  agrees  precisely  with  the  fifth  pe- 
tition of  the  Lord's  Prayer:  "Forgive  us  our  trespasses  as  we 
forgive  those  who  trespass  against  us."  In  Matt.  vi.  the  word 
is  "  debts;  "  in  Luke  xi.,  the  word  is  "  sins" — meaning  the  same. 
The  word  trespasses  expresses  the  idea,  and  is  used  by  our  Lord 
in  his  paraphrase  on  this  petition:  "  For  if  ye  forgive  men  their 
trespasses,  your  heavenly  Father  will  also  forgive  you;  but  if  ye 
forgive  not  men  their  trespasses,  neither  will  your  Father  for- 
give your  trespasses."  (Matt.  vi.  14, 15.)  "Trespasses"  is  com- 
mon in  old  English  versions  of  the  Lord's  Prayer — thus  Tyndale: 
"And  forgeve  us  oure  treaspases,  even  as  we  forgeve  ourtrespac- 
ers  " — in  Luke,  "  every  man  that  treaspaseth  us."  As  obedience 
is  due  to  God,  by  failing  to  do  our  duty  we  become  indebted  to 
his  justice,  which  demands  the  execution  of  the  penalty  of  the 
law;  by  forgiveness  that  obligation  is  discharged.  "As  we  for- 
give those  who  trespass  against  us,"  is  the  same  as  in  Matthew, 
"as  we  forgive  our  debtors,"  and  in  Luke,  "for  we  also  forgive 
every  one  that  is  indebted  to  us."  The  language  denotes  simiii- 
tude--like  as  we  also  forgive.    It  does  not  imply  that  our  act  of 

See  Summers's  "  Commentary  on  the  Ritual,"  pp.  52,  53.  Dr.  Summers  prob- 
ably never  did,  within  small  compass,  a  more  useful  work  for  the  Church  than 
the  preparation  of  this  manual.  It  is  a  well-ni;?h  perfect  performance  of  its  kind. 
It  meets  a  real  want,  and  should  be  republished  in  such  form  as  to  secure  its  gen- 
eral circulation. — T. 


CafJioIic  and  Evanr/elical  Character  of  This  Doctriuc.  117 


forgiveness  is  as  perfect  as  God's;  but  it  rather  recognizes  his 
grace  in  enabling  ns  to  forgive  our  debtors;  his  forgiving  love 
is  exemplary  to  us,  not  ours  to  him;  while  it  is  implied  that  v/e 
shall  not  secure  it  if  we  do  not  imitate  it.  Cf.  Eph.  iv.  32;  v.  2. 
This  rule  applies  to  the  initial  act  of  pardon,  and  also  to  its 
repetition,  or  the  perpetuation  of  pardon  when  once  granted. 

Preventing  grace  is  sufficient  to  enable  a  penitent  to  bring 
forth  this  as  one  of  the  fruits  meet  for  repentance;  and  no  one 
ever  received  pardon  from  God  who  was  not  willing  to  pardon 
every  one  who  had  trespassed  against  him.  That  those  who 
have  been  forgiven  and  will  not  forgive  others  will  forfeit  their 
forgiveness  is  evident  froni  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  from  the 
explicit  statement  of  our  Lord,  as  illustrated  in  the  case  of  the 
unforgiving  servant  in  Matt,  xviii.:  "Then  his  lord,  after  that 
he  had  called  him,  said  unto  him,  O  thou  wicked  servant,  I  for- 
gave thee  all  tliat  debt,  because  thou  desiredst  me:  shouldest 
not  thou  also  have  had  compassion  on  thy  fellow-servant,  even  as 
I  had  pity  on  thee?  And  his  lord  was  wroth,  and  delivered  him 
to  the  tormentors,  till  he  should  pay  all  that  was  due  unto  him. 
So  likewise  shall  my  heavenly  Father  do  also  unto  you,  if  ye  from 
your  hearts  forgive  not  every  one  his  brother  their  trespasses." 

§  3.  Pardon  by  Prerogative  Considered. 

As  a  creditor  has  the  prerogative  of  canceling  the  obligation 
of  a  debtor  without  any  consideration,  some  have  hastily  con- 
cluded that  God  has  that  prerogative,  and  exercises  it  toward  sin- 
ners. Admitting  that  this  would  be  possible  if  there  were  no 
other  parties  involved  but  God  and  the  sinner,  it  cannot  be  the 
case  in  view  of  the  relations  which  both  sustain  to  the  universe 
of  moral  and  intelligent  beings.  So  far  as  the  sinner  is  con- 
cerned, pardon  is  entirely  free,  all  of  grace.  But  this  does  not 
preclude  the  necessity  of  a  satisfaction  to  the  perfections  of  God, 
which  have  been  outraged  by  the  sinner,  and  a  safe  guaranty  to 
all  the  subjects  of  God's  moral  government,  the  sinner  himself 
included,  that  his  pardon  shall  have  no  sinister  bearing  upon 
any  principles  involved  in  that  government.  This  we  have  fully 
shown  to  be  the  case  in  our  exposition  of  the  Second  Article; 
and  this  is  explicitly  stated  in  the  article  now  under  considera- 
tion: "We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God,  only  for  the 
merit  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  by  faith,  and  not 
for  our  own  works  and  deservings." 


118 


Tlie  Justification  of  Man. 


It  is  none  the  less,  but  all  the  more,  of  grace,  because  our  par- 
don has  been  purchased  by  his  merit;  for  God  so  loved  the 
world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  be- 
lieveth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting .  life." 
(John  iii.  16.)  "  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus:  whom  God  hath  set  forth  to 
be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  right- 
eousness for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  through  the  for- 
bearance of  God;  to  declare,  I  say,  at  this  time  his  righteousness: 
that  he  might  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  which  believeth 
in  Jesus."  (Eom.  iii.  24-26.)  "But  there  is  forgiveness  with 
thee,  that  thou  mayest  be  feared."    (Ps.  cxxx.  4.) 

It  is  none  the  less,  but  all  the  more  of  grace,  because  it  is 
vouchsafed  on  the  condition  of  faith — as  the  apostle  says, 
"Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  of  grace."  (Eom.  iv. 
16.)  Any  one  not  prejudiced  can  see  that  faith  is  the  necessary 
and  the  only  instrument  by  which  we  receive  the  atonement,  or 
reconciliation;  and  that  in  its  very  nature  it  excludes  all  idea 
of  merit  in  the  sinner,  as  it  relies  alone  on  the  merit  of  the 
Saviour. 

§  4.  The  Calvinistic  and  Arminian  Ordo  Salutis. 

Some  Calvinistic  divines  who  are  clear  enough  in  distinguish- 
ing between  justification  as  a  relative  work,  and  regeneration  as 
a  real  work,  fall  into  a  hysteron  proteron,  by  reversing  the  order 
of  their  occurrence.^  All  admit  that  they  are  in  a  general  view 
synchronous,  but  in  the  order  of  thought  justification  necessarily 
precedes  regeneration;  but  they  put  regeneration  first.  This  is 
their  order:  Regeneration,  faith,  repentance,  and  finally  justifica- 
tion. How  palpably  this  contradicts  the  Scripture  we  need  hardly 
stop  to  show.  "Jesus  came  into  Galilee,  preaching  the  gospel 
of  the  kingdom,  and  saying,  the  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  at  hand:  repent  ye,  and  believe  the  gospel." 
( Mark  i.  14.)  "  But  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he 
power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on 
his  name."  (John  i.  12.)  "For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God 
by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus."  (Gal.  iii.  26.)  "But  to  him  that 
Avorketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly, 
his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness."    (Rom.  iv.  5.) 

One  would  think  that  nothing  can  be  plainer  than  this:  Re- 
pentance precedes  justifying  faith.  An  impenitent  sinner  cannot 


CatJioUc  and  Evangelical  Character  of  This  Doctrine.  119 


believe  on  Christ  with  the  heart  unto  righteousness;  he  must  re- 
nounce his  sins  (as  well  as  his  self-righteousness)  before  he  can 
embrace  his  Saviour;  he  mast  be  first  justified  as  a  sinner — a 
sinner,  though  a  penitent  sinner,  not  as  a  saint — for  God  justi- 
fieth  the  ungodly,  but  he  justifies  no  unbeliever.  We  are  justified 
by  faith  alone,  and  not  for  our  own  works  or  deservings:  not  in 
view  of  the  sanctifying  work  of  the  Spirit,  but  in  view  of  the  re- 
deeming work  of  the  Son.  Then  being  justified  by  faith  we  have 
peace  with  God,  and  that  faith  worketli  by  love  and  purifieth  the 
heart.  The  Spirit  who  works  that  faith  in  us  with  our  concur- 
rence, in  the  same  way,  and  at  the  same  time,  creates  us  anew  in 
Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  as  the  apostle  says,  Eph.  ii.  8,  9. 

It  is  marvelous  that  any  should  mistake  this  divine  method. 
We  can  account  for  it  only  in  this  way.  Our  Calvinistic  breth- 
ren believe  as  we  do,  that  all  are  born  in  sin,  and  of  themselves 
are  utterly  incapable  of  performing  any  good  thing  apart  from 
divine  grace.  "What!"  they  exclaim,  "can  a  corpse  perform 
the  actions  of  a  living  man  ?  Must  not  the  dead  sinner  be  raised 
to  newness  of  life,  before  he  can  make  a  motion  toward  that 
which  is  good?  Surely  he  must  first  be  regenerated — and  he 
cannot  but  be  passive  in  regeneration — before  he  can  believe  or 
repent."  They  imagine  that  this  puts  us  into  an  inextricable 
dilemma.  Bat  their  fallacy  is  easily  exposed.  They  forget  that 
preventing  grace  is  given  to  every  man,  and  that  grace  which 
goes  before  man's  effort  (as  its  name  implies )  is  given  to  him  to 
enable  him  to  comply  with  the  conditions  of  salvation.  If  he 
cannot  act  until  he  is  regenerated,  and  if  as  a  dead  man  he  must 
be  passive  in  regeneration,  how  can  it  be  his  duty  to  be  regen- 
erated? how  can  repentance  or  faith  be  a  duty?  how  can  he  be 
held  responsible  for  the  omission  of  any  thing  good,  or  for  the 
commission  of  any  thing  evil?  He  cannot  be  censured  for  un- 
belief or  impenitence,  as  he  cannot  repent  or  believe  till  he  is 
regenerated,  and  he  cannot  regenerate  himself,  or  do  any  thing 
toward  his  regeneration.    Is  there  any  flaw  in  this  argument? 

But  if  preventing  grace  be  given  to  a  man  to  enable  him  to 
repent  and  believe,  he  can  be  held  responsible  for  his  impen- 
itence and  unbelief.  Kepentance  and  faith  in  this  case  can  be 
consistently  required  as  the  conditions  of  justification  and  regen- 
eration, and  there  is  nothing  unreasonable  or  unjust  in  the  sanc- 
tions by  which  repentance  and  faith  are  enforced.    "  Except  ye 


120 


The  Justification  of  Man, 


repent,  ye  shall  perish."  "  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned." 

God  alone  regenerates  the  soul;  but  he  will  not  regenerate  any 
one  whom  he  does  not  justify — and  God  alone  justifieth;  but  he 
will  not  justify  any  one  who  does  not  renounce  his  sins  by  re- 
pentance, and  embrace  the  Saviour  by  faith.  We  need  hardly 
say  that  though  no  one  can  repent  or  believe  without  the  aid  of 
God's  grace,  yet  God  can  neither  repent  nor  believe  for  any  man. 

§5.  Dr.  Cocker's  Erroneous  View  of  Justification, 

There  is  great  unanimity  among  Protestants  of  what  are  called 
the  Evangelical  School,  on  the  forensic  use  of  the  term  justi- 
fication and  its  cognates,  as  applied  to  this  subject.  We  can  call 
to  mind  but  one  Methodist  who  has  written  adversely  to  the 
view  which  we  have  defended  in  opposition  to  the  Tridentine 
opinion.  We  were  greatly  surprised  to  find  the  following  lan- 
guage used  by  Dr  Cocker  in  the  number  of  the  Methodist  Quar- 
terhj  Bevieiv  for  January,  1876: 

I  am  not  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  in  Wesleyan  theology  we  have  been  taught 
to  render  the  Greek  6iKaio(7vv7j  exclusively  by  the  word  "  forgiveness."  Justifica- 
tion, we  say,  is  "  the  pardon  of  sin."  And  here,  I  think,  we  are  wrong.  Justifi- 
cation— righteousness — is  a  generic  terra,  embracing  several  specific  terms,  as 
pardon,  adoption,  and  regeneration,  or  sanctification. 

Of  course,  to  justify  means  to  forgive  sin,  but  it  means  more  than  this.  It 
means  to  be  "  made  free  from  sin,"  and  to  be  constituted  inherently  and  actually 
righteous.  This  is  unmistakably  the  sense  in  which  the  term  is  used  in  Rom.  vi. 
6,  7:  "  Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin 
might  he  destroyed,  that  henceforth  Ave  should  not  serve  sin.  For  he  that  is  dead  is 
freed  from  sin"  literally,  "  is  jusiijied  from  sin"  So  also  in  Rev.  xxii.  11:  "He 
that  is  unjust,  let  him  be  unjust  still:  and  he  which  is  filthy,  let  him  be  filthy 
still:  and  he  that  is  righteous,  let  him  be  righteous  still:"  literally,  "he  that 
is  justified,  or  made  just,  let  him  be  just  still." 

Many  more  passages  might  be  given  to  show  that  tlie  term  justification  is  em- 
ployed in  so"  wide  a  sense  as  to  embrace  sanctification  also.  These  are  suflicient 
for  our  purpose.  We  claim  that  the  righteousness  of  God  {(hKaLoavvrj  yap  Qeov, 
Rom.  i.  17)  expresses  the  whole  economy,  the  whole  method  and  process  of  hu- 
man recovery  or  redemption;  and  that  the  phrase,  righteousness  of  faith  [diKaioavvTi 
ill  rrhreor^  Rom.  v.  1-11),  comprehends  the  totality  and  unity  of  Christian  con- 
sciousness, from  its  first  dawning  light  in  the  soul  to  its  complete  fruition  in  the 
eternal  day. 

We  say  that  we  read  this  with  surprise  and  regret.  We  real- 
ly thought  that  if  any  doctrine  were  well  grounded  among  Prot- 
estants it  was  that  of  justification  by  faith.  Luther  showed  his 
sense  of  the  importance  of  this  doctrine  by  calling  it  the  Article 


Catholic  and  Evangelical  Character  of  This  Doctrine.  121 


of  a  standing  or  a  falling  Church — that  is,  a  Church  stands  or 
falls  as  it  holds  or  rejects  this  doctrine.  This  may  indeed  be  said 
of  other  fundamental  dogmas;  and  the  author  of  "Ecce  Homo" 
applies  the  (jnome  to  the  aggressive,  or  missionary,  feature  of  the 
ChurclV.  But  the  language  shows  how  highly  the  great  Keform- 
er  held  this  doctrine.  If  it  is  of  so  great  importance  it  surely 
should  be  maintained  in  all  its  orthodox  simplicity  and  fullness. 

We  have  shown  that  nothing  can  be  more  simple,  explicit,  and 
definite  than  the  Ninth  Article  of  our  Confession. 

In  the  next  article  it  is  stated  that  good  works  are  '.'the  fruit 
of  faith,  and  follow  after  justification."  The  article  says:  "We 
are  accounted  righteous" — not  made  ricjliteoiis — in  justification. 
This  is  indeed  "  Wesleyan  theology."  Thus  the  AVesleyan  Meth- 
odist Catechism:  "Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace, 
wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our  sins,  and  accepteth  us  as  righteous 
in  his  sight  only  for  the  sake  of  Christ."  And  it  is  there  dis- 
tinguished, as  a  relative  work,  from  regeneration  and  sanctifica- 
tion,  as  a  real  work — justification  being  done  for  us,  and  the 
other  being  done  in  us.  In  justification  we  are  accounted,  accept- 
ed— deal  t  with — as  if  we  were  righteous,  just  as  pardoned  culprits, 
who  are  not  by  their  pardon  made  innocent,  are  dealt  with  as  if 
they  were  not  criminals.  Hence  in  the  Scriptures  justification, 
pardon,  forgiveness,  and  remission  of  sins  are  used  interchange- 
ably as  synonymous  expressions,  with  slight  variations  of  im- 
port, indeed,  but  all  indicating  the  relative  work — that  done /or 
us — which  we  have  distinguished  from  the  real — that  done  in  us. 
Thus,  when  the  publican's  sins  were  forgiven,  he  is  said  to  have 
been  justified.  (Lukexviii.  13, 14)  So  Acts  xiii.  38, 39:  "Through 
this  man  is  preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins:  and  by 
him  all  that  believe  are  justified  from  all  things,  from  which  ye 
could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses."  This  is  explained 
and  developed  in  that  great  classical  text,  Rom.  iv.  5-8:  "  But  to 
him  that  w^orketh  not,  but  believetli  on  him  that  justifieth  the 
ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness.  Even  as  David 
also  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the  man,  unto  whom  God  im- 
puteth  righteousness  without  works,  saying.  Blessed  are  they 
whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  covered. 
Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  impute  sin." 
Here,  it  may  be  observed,  the  word  rendered  "righteousness"  is 
the  noun  corresponding  to  the  verb  rendered  "justifieth."  All 


122 


The  Justification  of  Man. 


admit  that  the  words  oi/.a^aamr^  and  or/.a'.uu)  are  used  in  different 
senses  in  the  New  Testament.  The  noun  occurs,  we  believe, 
ninety-two  times,  and  is  invariably  rendered  "righteousness." 
The  verb  occurs  forty  times,  and  is  rendered  "justify  "  thirty-eight 
times,  once  "freed,"  and  once  "let  be  righteous."  These  two 
exceptions  are  found  in  the  passages  cited  by  Dr.  Cocker:  Rom. 
vi.  7;  Rev.  xxii.  11.  Why  did  lie  not  in  the  latter  case — for  the 
former  prove^  nothing — quote  the  balancing  clause:  "  He  that  is 
unjust,  let  him  be  unjust  still:  and  he  which  is  filthy,  let  him  be 
filthy  still:  and  he  that  is  righteous,  let  him  be  righteous  still: 
and  he  that  is  holi/,  let  him  he  liohj  still?'''  Surely,  he  can  find  no 
support  from  this  passage. 

§  6.  John  Goodwin  on  Justification. 

That  justification  by  faith  is  simply  the  remission  of  sins,  and 
not,  as  the  Antinomians  teach,  the  imputation  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness, or,  as  the  Romanists  hold,  inherent  righteousness,  is 
surely  the  doctrine  of  Paul,  as  set  forth  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  and  is  by  no  means  a  peculiar  feature  of  "  Wesleyan 
theology."  It  is  most  luminously,  learnedly,  and  logically  ex- 
pounded and  defended  by  the  great  Arminian  Puritan,  John 
Goodwin — in  comparison  with  whom  most  divines  seem  to  be 
dwarfs — in  his  immortal  work,  "  The  Banner  of  Justification." 
AVe  know  not  where  to  begin  or  where  to  end  in  quoting  from 
this  treatise.  But  we  will  give  a  taste  of  it,  by  quoting  Sec.  x. : 
"How  the  Spirit  of  God  is  or  may  be  said  to  justify  men" — in 
which  Goodwin  cites  this  very  passage.  Rev.  xxii.  11: 

Men  are  said  in  Scripture  as  well  to  Le  ju^^tified  as  sanctified  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  and  this  as  justification  is  distinguished  from  sanctification.  "But  ye  are 
washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God."  (1  Cor,  vi,  11,)  Some  expositors,  indeed,  under- 
stand the  word,  c^inaiuT^Tjre^  ye  were  justified,  not  of  justification,  properly  so  called, 
or  which  standeth  in  remission  of  sins,  but  of  such  a  justification  which  consisteth 
in  a  progress  or  proficiency  in  righteousness,  or  in  the  profession  and  practice  of 
Christianity.  For  the  justification  of  which  exposition  they  plead  the  exigency 
of  the  order  or  gradation  in  the  text  itself,  as  also  the  like  use  or  signification 
of  the  word  in  the  Apocalypse,  xxii.  11:  Kat  o  dmatoq  diKaLu&riTu  en,  Let  Jam 
that  is  righteous,  or  just,  be  justified  still,  that  is,  as  the  expositors  we  speak  of 
interpret,  "Let  him  increase  and  make  forward  in  ways  of  righteousness."  It 
must  be  acknowledged  that  to  grow  in  grace  and  proceed  in  holiness  and  right- 
eousness from  day  to  day  may  be  called  a  man's  justification  in  a  declnrntive  or 
arguitive  sense,  namely,  as  they  argue  or  declare  a  man  to  be  a  justified  person, 
and  his  faith  to  be  of  the  right  kind,  a  living  and  growing  faith ;  yea,  they  may  be 


Catholic  and  Evangelical  Character  of  This  Doctrine.  123 


termed  a  man's  justification,  as  they  are  just  matter  of  liis  approbation  and  com- 
mendation, wiiicli  in  many  cases  are  used  in  a  sense  parallel  to  that  of  the  word 
''justification,"  as  it  is  used  sometimes.  But  the  justification  which  is  the  subject 
of  our  present  discourse  doth  not  consist  in  any  action,  one  or  more,  nor  in  any 
quality,  one  or  more;  but  rather  in  a  state  or  condition,  namely,  such  whereinto 
a  person  is  translated  or  brought  by  the  pardon  of  his  sins,  or  sentence  of  absolu- 
tion awarded  by  God.  Xor  need  we  lake  the  word  "justification,"  in  the  Script- 
ure lately  cited  (1  Cor.  vi.  11),  in  any  other  sense  but  this.  For  justification,  in 
this  sense,  may  be  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  he  hath  a  special  and  approi)ri- 
ate  hand  in  raising  the  work  of  faith  by  which  men  are  thus  justified,  in  tiie 
hearts  of  those  who  do  believe;  in  which  respect  faith  is  registered  by  the  Apostle 
Paul  amongst  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  (Gal.  v.  22);  and  by  his  fellow-apostle  Peter 
they  who  believe  are  said  to  "obey  the  trutli,"  speaking  of  the  obedience  of  faith 
to  the  gospel,  "through  the  Spirit"  (1  Pet.  i.  22);  and  the  Christians  in  Achaia 
are  said  to  have  "believed  through  grace"  (Acts  xviii.  27),  that  is,  through  the 
grace  of  God  in  his  vouch^fement  of  his  Spirit  unto  them,  by  whom  they  were 
enabled  to  believe;  yea,  and  actually  believed.  Now,  then,  according  to  the  known 
maxim  or  principle  in  reason,  quod  est  causa  caiisce,  est  causa  causaii,  "Tiiat  which 
is  the  cause  of  any  cause  producing  an  effect  is  the  cause  of  the  effect  itself,  as 
well  as  of  the  cause  producing  it;"  faith  being  the  cause  or  means  of  justification, 
and  the  Spirit  the  cause  of  faith,  justification  may  as  truly,  and  not  much  less 
properly,  be  attributed  unto  the  Spirit  as  unto  fftith. 

§  7.  John  Calvin  on  Justification. 

Calvin,  in  tlie  eleventh  chapter  of  the  third  Book  of  his  "In- 
stitutes," in  his  sharp  reply  to  Osiander,  says: 

Throughout  this  discussion  the  terms  righteousness  and  justify  are  extended  by 
him  to  two  things.  First,  he  understands  that  "  to  be  justified"  denotes  not  only 
to  be  reconciled  to  God  by  a  free  pardon,  but  also  to  be  made  righteous;  and  that 
righteousness  is  not  a  gratuitous  imputation,  but  a  sanctity  and  integrity  inspired 
by  the  divine  essence  which  resides  in  us.  Secondly,  he  resolutely  denies  that 
Christ  is  our  righteousness,  as  having,  in  the  character  of  a  priest,  expiated  our 
sins  and  appeased  the  Father  on  our  behalf,  but  as  being  the  eternal  God  and 
everlasting  life.  To  prove  the  first  assertion,  that  God  justifies  not  only  by  par- 
doning, but  also  by  regenerating,  he  inquires  whether  God  leaves  those  whom  he 
justifies  in  their  natural  state  without  any  reformation  of  their  manners.  The 
answer  is  very  easy;  as  Christ  cannot  be  divided,  so  these  two  blessings,  which  we 
receive  together  in  him,  are  also  inseparable.  "Whomsoever,  therefore,  God  re- 
ceives into  his  favor,  he  likewise  gives  them  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  by  whose 
])ower  he  renews  them  in  his  own  image.  But  if  the  brightness  of  the  sun  be  in- 
separable from  his  heat,  shall  we  tlierefore  say  that  the  earth  is  warmed  by  his 
light,  and  illuminated  by  his  lieat?  Nothing  can  be  more  apposite  to  the  present 
subject  than  this^imilitude.  The  beams  of  the  sun  quicken  and  fertilize  the  earth, 
his  rays  brighten  and  illuminate  it.  Here  is  a  mutual  and  indivisible  connection. 
Yet  reason  itself  prohibits  us  to  transfer  to  one  what  is  peculiar  to  the  other.  In 
this  confusion  of  two  blessings  which  Osiander  obtrudes  on  us,  there  is  a  similar 
absurdity.  For  as  God  actually  renews  to  the  practice  of  righteousness  those  whom 
he  gratuitously  accepts  as  righteous,  Osiander  confounds  that  gift  of  regeneration 


124 


Tlie  Justification  of  Man. 


with  this  gracious  acceptance,  and  contends  that  they  are  one  and  tlie  same. 
But  the  scripture,  though  it  connects  them  together,  yet  enumerates  them  distinct- 
ly, that  the  manifold  grace  of  God  may  be  the  more  evident  to  us.  For  that 
passage  of  Paul  is  not  superfluous,  that  "Christ  is  made  unto  us  righteousness  and 
sanctification."  And  whenever  he  argues,  from  the  salvation  procured  for  us, 
from  the  paternal  love  of  God,  and  from  the  grace  of  Christ,  that  we  are  called 
to  holiness  and  purity,  he  plainly  indicates  that  it  is  one  thing  to  be  justified  and 
another  thing  to  be  made  new  creatures.  When  Osiander  appeals  to  the  Script- 
ures he  corrupts  as  many  passages  as  he  cites.  The  assertion  of  Paul,  that  "  to  Iiim 
that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith 
is  counted  for  righteousness,"  is  explained  by  Osiander  to  denote  making  a 
man  righteous.  With  the  same  temerity  he  corrupts  the  whole  of  that  fourth 
chapter  to  the  Romans,  and  hesitates  not  to  impose  the  same  false  gloss  on  the 
passage  just  cited,  "  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect?  It  is 
God  that  justifieth;"  where  it  is  evident  tliat  the  apostle  is  treating  simply  of  ac- 
cusation and  absolution,  and  that  his  meaning  wholly  rests  on  the  antithesis. 
His  folly,  therefore,  betrays  itself  both  in  his  arguments  and  in  his  citations  of 
scripture  proofs.  With  no  more  propriety  does  he  treat  of  the  word  righteous- 
ness when  he  says  "  that  faith  was  reckoned  to  Abraham  for  righteousness,"  be- 
cause tliat,  after  having  embraced  Christ  (who  is  the  righteousness  of  God,  and 
God  himself),  he  was  eminent  for  the  greatest  virtues.  Whence  it  appears  that 
of  two  good  parts  he  erroneously  makes  one  corrupt  whole;  for  the  righteousness 
there  mentioned  does  not  belong  to  the  whole  course  of  Abraham's  life;  but  rath- 
er the  Spirit  testifies  that,  notwithstanding  the  singular  eminence  of  Abraham's 
virtues,  and  his  laudable  and  persevering  advancement  in  them,  yet  he  did  not 
please  God  any  otherwise  than  in  receiving  by  faith  the  grace  offered  in  the  prom- 
ise. Whence  it  follows  that  in  justification  there  is  no  regard  paid  to  the  works, 
as  Paul  conclusively  argues  in  that  passage. 

Again  lie  says: 

Whom,  therefore,  the  Lord  receives  into  fellowship,  him  he  is  said  to  justify; 
because  he  cannot  receive  any  one  into  favor  or  into  fellowship  with  himself, 
without  making  him  from  a  sinner  to  be  a  righteous  person.  This,  we  add,  is  ac- 
complished by  the  remission  of  sins.  For  if  they  whom  the  Lord  has  reconciled 
to  himself  be  judged  according  to  their  works,  they  will  still  be  found  actually 
sinners,  who,  notwithstanding,  must  be  absolved  and  free  from  sin.  It  appears, 
then,  that  those  Avhom  God  receives  are  made  righteous  no  otherwise  than  as 
they  are  purified  by  being  cleansed  from  all  their  defilements  by  the  remission  of 
their  sins;  so  that  such  a  righteousness  may,  in  one  word,  be  denominated  a  re- 
mission of  sins.  Both  these  points  are  fully  established  by  the  language  of  Paul, 
which  I  have  already  recited.  "  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  unto 
himself,  not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto  them;  and  hath  committed  unto 'us 
the  word  of  reconciliation."  Then  he  adds  the  substance  of  his  ministry:  "He 
hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin;  that  we  might  be  made  the 
righteousness  of  God  in  him."  The  terms  "  righteousness  "  and  "  reconciliation  " 
are  here  used  by  him  indiscriminately,  to  teach  us  that  they  are  mutually  com- 
prehended in  each  other.  And  he  states  the  manner  of  obtaining  this  righteous- 
'ness  to  consist  in  our  transgressions  not  being  imputed  to  us.    Wherefore  we  can 


Catholic  rind  Evangelical  Character  of  This  Doctrine.  125 


no  longer  doubt  how  God  justifies,  when  we  hear  that  he  reconciles  us  to  himself 
by  not  imputing  our  i<ins  to  us. 

He  makes  the  same  use  of  Acts  xiii.  38,  39  tliat  we  do,  and 
says,  "The  apostle  thus  connects  '  forgiveness  of  sins'  with  'jus- 
tification,', to  show  that  they  are  identically  the  same."  That 
Calvin  sometimes  uses  language  which  seems  to  imply  that  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us  for  justification  is  true; 
yet  he  does  not  distinguish  between  the  active  and  the  passive 
righteousness  of  Christ,  but  considers  his  holy  life  and  sacri- 
ficial death  as  constituting  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  which 
being  imputed  to  us,  we  are  reputed  righteous  before  God,  and 
not  of  ourselves.  This  language  is  somewhat  ambiguous,  but 
it  is  clear  and  pointed  in  this,  that  it  makes  justification  a  work 
done  for  us,  and  not  a  work  done  in  us  or  by  us. 

§  8.  John  Wesley  on  Justification. 
As  this  subject  is  of  so  vast  importance,  and  as  any  tendency 
among  us  toward  Eomish,  High -church,  or  Broad -church 
views  of  justification — as  both  a  real  and  a  relative  work,  one 
which  makes  us  righteous  as  well  as  pardons  our  sin — should 
be  checked  promptly  and  effectually,  we  cite  a  passage  or  two 
from  Mr.  Wesley's  admirable  sermon  on  '^Justification  by 
Faith,"  on  Rom.  iv.  5:  "To  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believe tli 
on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for  right- 
eousness." 

But  what  is  it  to  he  jmllfied ?  What  is  justification  f  This  was  the  second 
thing  which  I  proposed  to  show.  And  it  is  evident,  from  what  has  been  already 
observed,  that  it  is  not  the  being  made  actually  just  and  righteous.  This  is  sanc- 
tification ;  whicli  is,  indeed,  in  some  degree,  the  immediate  fruit  of  justification, 
but,  nevertheless,  is  a  distinct  gift  of  God  and  of  a  totally  different  nature.  The 
one  implies  what  God  does  for  us  through  his  Son ;  the  other  what  he  works  in  us  by 
his  Spirit.  So  that,  although  some  rare  instances  may  be  found  wherein  the  term 
justified  or  justification  is  used  in  so  wide  a  sense  as  to  include  sandification  also,  yet 
in  general  use  they  are  sufficiently  distinguished  from. each  other,  both  by  St.  Paul 
and  the  other  inspired  writers.  .  .  .  The  .  plain  scriptural  notion  of  jus- 
tification is  pardon,  tlie  forgiveness  of  sins.  It  is  that  act  of  God  the  Father, 
whereby,  for  the  sake  of  the  propitiation  made  by  the  blood  of  his  Son,  lie 
"showeth  forth  liis  righteousness  (or  mercy)  by  the  remission  of  the  sins  tliat  are 
past."  This  is  the  easy,  natural  account  of  it  given  by  St.  Paul  throughout  this 
whole  Epistle.  So  he  explains  it  himself,  more  particularly  in  this  and  in  the 
following  chapter.  Thus,  in  the  next  verses  but  one  to  the  text,  "  Blessed  are 
they,"  saith  he,  "whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  covered:  bless- 
ed is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  impute  sin."    To  him  that  is  justified 


126 


TJie  Jastificat'ion  of  Man, 


or  forgiven,  God  "  will  not  impute  sin"  to  his  condemnation.  He  will  not  con- 
demn him  on  that  account,  either  in  this  world  or  in  that  which  is  to  come.  His 
sins,  all  his  past  sins,  in  thought,  word,  and  deed,  are  covered,  are  blotted  out, 
shall  not  be  remembered  or  mentioned  against  him  any  more  than  if  they  had 
not  been.  God  will  not  inflict  on  that  sinner  what  he  deserved  to  suffer,  because 
the  Son  of  his  love  hath  suffered  for  him.  And  from  the  time  we  are  "accepted 
through  the  Beloved,"  "reconciled  to  God  through  his  blood,"  he  loves,  and 
blesses,  and  watches  over  us  for  good,  even  as  if  we  had  never  sinned. 

Indeed  the  apostle  in  one  place  seems  to  extend  the  meaning  of  the  word 
much  farther,  ^vhere  he  says,  "Not  the  hearers  of  the  law,  but  the  doers  of  the 
law,  shall  be  justified."  Here  he  appears  to  refer  our  justification  to  the  sentence 
of  the  great  day.  And  so  our  Lord  himself  unquestionably  doth,  when  he  says, 
"By  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  justified;"  proving  thereby  that  "for  every  idle 
word  that  men  shall  speak,  they  shall  give  an  account  in  the  day  of  judgment:" 
but  perhaps  we  can  hardly  produce  another  instance  of  St.  Paul's  using  the  word 
in  that  distant  sense.  In  the  general  tenor  of  Ids  writings  it  is  evident  he  doth 
not;  and  least  of  all  in  the  text  before  us,  which  undeniably  speaks,  not  of  those 
who  have  already  "  finished  their  course,"  but  of  those  who  are  now  jmt  setting 
out,  just  beginning  to  "run  the  race  which  is  set  before  them." 

§  9.  Objections  Answered. 

An  objector  might  still  ask,  "If  pardon  is  substantially  the 
same  as  justification,  why  is  the  latter  term  so  frequently  used 
in  preference  to  the  former?  "  The  Rev.  Benjamin  Field  assigns 
two  reasons  for  this,  with  which  we  close  this  discussion: 

1.  "  The  blessing  in  question  is  conferred  upon  mankind  in  a  manner  which 
exhibits  the  righteousness  or  justice  of  God  in  equal  ]>rominence  with  his  good- 
ness and  mercy."  "  The  forgiveness  of  sin  may  i»e  the  act  of  mere  mercy,  not 
only  without  any  respect  to  the  dictates  of  justice,  but  in  violation  of  its  princi- 
ples. Justification  is  an  act  of  mercy,  indeed,  but  of  mercy  in  connection  with 
justice,  and  under  its  control.  It  is  mercy  that  pardons,  but  justice  that  justifies." 
Here  the  grand  doctrine  of  the  atonement  of  Christ  is  brought  into  view.  A  Be- 
ing of  infinite  dignity  has  become  the  voluntary  and  all-sufficient  Surety  for  sin- 
ful men.  He  died,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  sustaining  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and 
meeting  the  demands  of  justice,  and  on  this  account  tlie  law  itself  consents  to 
the  pardon  of  tiie  offender,  and  God,  in  his  official  character  of  Jwrf^re,  shows  mercy 
upon  terms  that  are  consistent  with  a  righteous  government.  Thus,  "  grace  reigns 
through  righteousness."  God  "  is  faithful  ixndjust  to  forgive  us  our  sins"  (1  John 
i.  9)— "  jusf  and  the  justifier  of  him  that  believeth."    (See  Rom.  iii.  21-2G.) 

2.  The  blessing  in  question  invests  men  with  all  the  privileges  of  righteous- 
ness. Pardon  may  signify  nothing  more  than  a  remission  of  tlie  penalty  due  to 
sin.  Justification  involves  a  restoration  to  forfeited  immunities  and  privileges. 
The  man  is  accounted  righteous,  ana  is  treated  as  such — treated  in  relation  to 
God  and  eternity  as  an  innocent  and  holy  being.  It  is  as  if  a  deed  were  put  into 
his  hand  entitling  him  to  be  henceforth  dealt  with  as  one  would  be  who  had  per- 
formed the  Avhole  condition  of  the  covenant  of  life.  The  whole  matter,  then, 
may  be  summed  up  in  the  following  language-  "Justification  is  that  act  of  God, 


Catholic  and  Ecarujelical  Character  of  This  Doctrine.  127 


viewed  as  our  righteous  and  yet  merciful  Judge,  by  wliich,  for  the  sake  of  the 
satisfaction  and  merits  of  Christ,  embraced  and  applied  to  the  heart  by  faith,  he 
discharges  the  criminal  at  his  bar,  and  treats  him  as  a  just  person,  in  full  accord- 
ance with  the  untarnished  holiness  of  his  own  nature,  and  the  inviolable  rectitude 
of  his  administration. 

§  10.  Conclusion.  • 

It  is  not  necessary  to  prolong  the  discussion  of  this  subject, 
though  its  vital  importance  inclines  us  to  linger  upon  it.  It  is 
fully  discussed,  and  the  Protestant  view  triumphantly  defended, 
in  Knapp's  Theology,  Sections  108-115.  Knapp  says  emphat- 
ically: "The  Bible  makes  justification  the  mere  forgiveness  of 
sins — /.  e.,  removal  of  the  punishment  of  them."  He  repudiates 
as  Socinian  and  RDmisli  error  the  notion  that  justijicatio  interna 
is  taught  in  Kom.  v.;  but  he  holds  it  is  justijicatio  externa^  and 
says,  "The  terms  justificatio)},  pardon,  accounting  righteous,  oc- 
cur in  the  Bible  much  more  frequently  in  this  sense  than  in  any 
other,  and  so  are  synonymous  with  forgiveness  of  sins."  In 
Sliedd's  "History  of  Christian  Doctrine,"  Book  V.,  this  branch  of 
Soteriology  is  largely  handled,  and  the  Romish  notion  of  justi- 
fication, as  comprehending  sanctification,  is  traced  to  Augustin. 
Shedd  says  mildly:  "The  difference  between  the  judicial  and  the 
renovating  side  of  redemption  was  not  always  kept  in  view  by 
that"  usually  sharp  and  aquiline  eye?'  See  also  Hagenbach's 
"  History  of  Doctrines,"  Sections  251,  252;  Ealston's  "  Elements," 
IV.,  28-33;  "Watson's  "Institutes,"  II.,  23;  and  especially  the  ar- 
ticle on  Justification  in  his  Dictionary.  There  is  a  capital,  con- 
cise statement  of  the  doctrine,  with  a  brief  history  of  opinions 
concerning  it,  in  McClintock  and  Strong's  Cyclopedia,  with  a 
list  of  works  on  the  subject  which  may  be  consulted. 

[In  full  harmony  with  the  foregoing  discussion  are  Dr.  Pope's 
definitions  of  Justification  and  of  Justifijing  Faith: 

Justification  is  the  divine  judicial  act  which  applies  to  the  sinner,  believing  in 
Christ,  the  benefit  of  the  atonement,  delivering  him  from  the  condemnation  of  his 
sin,  introducing  him  into  a  state  of  favor,  and  treating  him  as  a  righteous  person  * 

The  faith  whicli  is  the  condition  and  instrument  of  justification  is  the  trust 
of  the  soul  in  Christ  as  the  only  propitiation  for  human  sin.  It  is  a  personal  act 
of  the  penitent  sinner  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  reveals  the 
atonement  to  the  mind,  infuses  desire  into  the  heart,  and  thus  persuades  the  will 
to  embrace  the  Saviour.  This  faith,  as  receptive,  renounces  self  in  every  form, 
obtains  forgiveness,  and  is  reckoned  for  righteousness:  these  being  one  blessing 
under  two  aspects,  f] 


*  *'  Compendium,"  etc..  Vol.  1 1.,  p.  407.         f  Ibid.,  u.  411. 


PART  IV. 
ARTICLE  X. 

Of  Good  Works. 

Although  cjood  irorks,  which  are  the  fruits  of  faith,  and  follow  aft- 
er justification,  cannot  put  aicaij  our  sins,  and  endure  the  severity  of 
God's  judgment;  yet  are  they  pleasing  and  acceptable  to  God  in  Christ, 
and  spring  out  of  a  true  and  lively  faith,  insomuch  tJiat  by  them  a 
lively  faith  may  be  as  evidently  known  as  a  tree  is  discerned  by  its fruit. 

Introduction. 

This  article  is  the  same  as  Article  XII.  in  the  Anglican  Con- 
fession, except  that  "although  "  is  substituted  for  "albeit  that," 
"  spring  out "  for  "  do  spring  out  necessarily,"  and  "  is  discerned 
by  its  fruit  "  for  "  discerned  by  the  fruit."  These  verbal  changes 
are  for  the  better.  "  Necessarily  "  is  well  omitted,  as  the  am- 
biguity might  lead  some  to  think  that  faith  produces  good  works 
without  any  distinct  volitioii  on  our  part.  If  "  living  "  had  been 
put  for  "lively  "  (viva  in  the  Latin)  it  might  have  been  better. 

This  article  was  not  one  of  the  Forty-two  Articles  of  King 
Edward's  reign,  but  was  added  in  1562.  It  is  slightly  varied  from 
the  article  in  the  Wurtemberg  Confession.  It  was  added  to  the 
preceding  article  on  Justification  to  guard  it  from  an  unscript- 
ural  Solifidianism.  This  was  the  more  necessary,  as  Agricola 
had  grafted  Antinomianism  on  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith,  and  Luther  himself  had  spoken  very  unadvised- 
ly on  this  subject;  moreover  the  nature  of  imputed  righteousness, 
as  held  by  Antinomians,  tended  to  make  void  the  law.  It  was 
thought  as  important  to  have  an  article  on  Good  Works  as  to  have 
one  on  Justification  by  Faith — just  as  the  Epistle  of  James  and 
the  practical  conclusions  of  Paul's  Epistles  are  as  necessary,  as 
their  doctrinal  portions  in  Galatians  and  Romans,  and  elsewhere. 
Three  things  here  demand  discussion:  first.  What  are  here  meant 
by  good  works?  secondly,  What  two  things  are  predicated  of  them 
negatively?  and  thirdly,  AVhat  two  things  are  predicated  of  them 
positively  ? 
(128) 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  WORKS  DESIGNATED  GOOD. 
§  1.  Good  Works  before  Justification. 

The  article  makes  no  distinction  between  works  of  piety,  em- 
bracing the  duties  of  the  first  table — those  which  relate  to  God 
— and  works  of  morality,  embracing  the  duties  of  the  second 
table — those  which  relate  to  man,  justice,  and  mercy.  As  these 
all  "  are  the  fruits  of  faith,"  they  must  be  all  comprehended  in 
this  general  designation. 

But  they  are  said  to  "follow  after  justification;"  and  this 
would  seem  to  imply  that  no  works  before  justification  are  to  be 
considered  good.  Indeed,  in  the  Anglican  Confession,  Article 
XIII.,  which  follows  this,  is  entitled,  "Of  Works  before  Jus- 
tification," and  of  these  it  is  said: 

"Works  done  before  the  grace  of  Christ,  and  the  inspiration  of  liis  Spirit,  are 
not  pleasant  to  God,  forasmuch  as  they  spring  not  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ;  nei- 
ther do  they  make  men  meet  to  receive  grace,  or  (as  tlie  school  authors  say) 
deserve  grace  of  congruity;  yea,  rather,  for  that  they  are  not  done  as  God  hath 
willed  and  commanded  them  to  be  done,  we  doubt  not  but  they  have  the  nature 
of  sin. 

Mr.  Wesley  did  well  to  omit  that  article.  It  is  ambiguous 
and  unguarded — and  the  more  so,  as  the  title  seems  to  imply 
that  man  can  perform  no  works  but  such  as  have  the  nature  of 
sin,  under  the  influence  and  by  the  aid  of  preventing  grace. 

§2.  Mr.  Wesley  on  Good  Works  in  General. 

In  his  sermon  before  the  Humane  Society  (Ser.  99)  Mr. 
Wesley  makes,  as  he  says,  "  a  few  reflections  upon  good  works 
in  general,"  thus: 

T  am  not  insensible  that  many,  even  serious  people,  are  jealous  of  all  that  is 
spoken  upon  this  subject;  nay,  and  whenever  the  necessity  of  good  works  is 
strongly  insisted  on,  take  for  granted  that  he  who  speaks  in  this  manner  is  but 
one  remove  from  Popery.  But  should  we,  for  fear  of  this  or  of  any  other  re- 
proach, refrain  from  speaking  "  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus?  "  Should  we,  on  any 
consideration,  "shun  to  declare  the  whole  counsel  of  God?"  Nay,  if  a  false 
prophet  could  utter  that  solemn  word,  how  much  more  may  the  ministers  of 
9  Vol.  II.  .  '  (129) 


130 


Good  Works. 


Christ  ?  AVe  cannot  go  beyond  the  word  of  the  Lord,  to  speak  eitlier  more  or 
less."  Is  it  not  to  be  lamented  that  any  who  fear  God  should  desire  us  to  do  other- 
wise, and  that  by  speaking  otherwise  themselves  they  should  occasion  the  way  of 
truth  to  be  evil  spoken  of?  I  mean,  in  particular,  the'way  of  salvation  by  faith, 
which,  on  this  very  account,  is  despised,  nay,  lield  in  abomination,  by  many  sen- 
sible men.  It  is  now  above  forty  years  since  this  grand  scriptural  doctrine,  "  By 
grace  ye  are  saved  through  faitii,"  began  to  be  openly  declared  by  a  few  clergy- 
men of  the  Church  of  England.  And  not  long  after,  some  who  lieard,  but  did 
not  understand,  attempted  to  preach  the  same  doctrine,  but  miserably  mangled  it; 
wresting  the  scripture,  and  "  making  void  the  law  through  faith." 

Some  of  these,  in  order  to  exalt  the  value  of  faith,  have  utterly  depreciated 
good  works.  They  speak  of  them  as  not  only  not  necessary  to  salvation,  but  as 
greatly  obstructive  to  it.  They  represent  them  as  abundantly  more  dangerous 
than  evil  ones  to  those  who  are  seeking  to  save  tlieir  souls.  One  cries  aloud: 
"  More  people  go  to  liell  by  praying  than  by  thieving.''  Another  screams  out: 
"Away  with  your  works!  Have  done  with  your  works,  or  you  cannot  come  to 
Christ!"  And  this  unscriptural,  irrational,  heathenish  declaration  is  called 
'prcachinrj  the  gospel!  But  "sliall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth"  speak,  as  well 
as  do  right?  Will  not  he  "  be  justified  in  his  saying,  and  clear  when  he  is 
judged?"-  Assuredly  he  will.  And  upon  his  authority  we  must  continue  to  de- 
clare that  whenever  you  do  good  to  any  for  liis  sake;  when  you  feed  the  hungry, 
give  drink  to  the  thirsty;  when  you  assist  the  stranger,  or  clothe  tlie  naked; 
when  you  visit  them  that  are  sick  or  in  prison — these  are  not  splendid  sins,  as  one 
marvelously  calls  them,  but  "sacrifices  wherewith  God  is  well  pleased."  Not 
that  our  Lord  intended  we  should  confine  our  beneficence  to  the  bodies  of  men. 
He  undoubtedly  designed  that  we  should  be  equally  abundant  in  works  of  spir- 
itual mercy.  He  died  to  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  all 
good  works;  zealous,  above  all,  to  save  souls  from  death,  and  thereby  hide  a 
multitude  of  sins.  And  this  is  unquestionably  included  in  St.  Paul's  exhorta- 
tion, "As  we  have  time,  let  us  do  good  unto  all  men;"  good  in  every  possible 
kind,  as  well  as  in  every  possible  degree.  But  why  does  not  our  blessed  Lord 
mention  works  of  spiritual  mercy?  He  could  not  do  it  with  any  propriety.  It 
was  not  for  him  to  say,  "  I  was  in  error,  and  you  convinced  me;  I  was  in  sin,  and 
you  brought  me  back  to  God."  And  it  needed  not;  for,  in  mentioning .sojjw,  he 
included  all  works  of  mercy. 

But  may  I  not  add  one  thing  more  (only  he  that  heareth,  let  him  understand)? 
(rood  works  are  so  far  from  being  hinderances  of  our  salvation;  they  are  so  far 
from  being  insignificant,  from  being  of  no  account  in  Christianity,  tliat,  supposing 
them  to  spring  from  a  right  principle,  they  are  the  perfection  of  religion.  They 
are  the  highest  part  of  that  spiritual  building  whereof  Jesus  Christ  is  the  founda- 
tion. To  those  who  attentively  consider  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  the  First  Epis- 
tle to  the  Corinthians,  it  will  be  undeniably  plain  that  what  St.  Paul  there  de- 
scribes as  the  highest  of  all  Christian  graces  is  properly  and  directly  the  love  of 
our  neighbor.  And  to  him  who  attentively  considers  the  whole  tenor,  both  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  it  will  be  equally  plain  that  works  springing  from  this 
love  are  the  highest  part  of  the  religion  therein  revealed.  Of  tliese  our  Lord 
himself  says,  "  Herein  is  my  Father  glorified,  that  ye  bring  forth  much  fruit." 
Much  fruit/    Does  not  the  very  expression  imply  the  excellency  of  what  is  so 


Tlie  Works  Designated  Good, 


131 


termed?  Is  not  the  tree  itself  for  the  sake  of  the  fruit?  By  bearing  fruit,  and 
by  this  alone,  it  attains  the  highest  perfection  it  is  capable  of,  and  answers  the  end 
for  which  it  was  planted.  "Who,  what  is  lie,  then,  that  is  called  a  Christian,  and 
can  speak  lightly  of  good  works? 

§3.  Such  Good  Works  Not  Splendid  Sins. 

It  was  AugDstin  who  called  the  works  in  question  "  splendid 
sins,"  and  his  modern  followers  have  done  the  same.  But  it  is 
absurd  to  call  acts  of  piety  or  of  charit}'  "sins,"  though  qualified 
by  the  epithet  "  splendid."  The  man  who  performs  them  with 
an  improper  motive  sins  in  their  performance.  But  if  any  one 
does  such  act  under  the  promptings  of  God's  Spirit  and  grace, 
which  operates  on  all  men,  he  does  not  sin  in  so  doing.  Their 
performance  does  not  hinder  his  justification:  it  rather  facili- 
tates it,  if  he  is  earnestly  seeking  it.  How  is  he  to  get  more 
grace  except  by  using  the  grace  already  given,  and  by  employ- 
ing the  means  of  grace?  Surely  repentance,  which  compre- 
hends conviction,  contrition,  and  renunciation  of  sin,  is  not  sin. 
Surely  prayer  for  the  pardon  of  sin  is  not  sin. 

§4.  Bishop  Browne  on  the  Thirteenth  English  Article. 

The  framers  of  the  Thirteenth  Anglican  Article,  when  they 
gave  it  its  title,  must  have  used  the  term  justification  with  some 
latitude  of  meaning,  as  comprehending  the  preventing  grace 
which  leads  to  it.  We  find  that  Bishop  Browne  entertains  a 
similar  view.    He  says  ("Exposition,"  p.  335): 

As  regards  the  title  of  the  article,  "  Of  Works  Done  Before  Justification,"  we 
must  observe  that  it  was  probably  adopted  because  the  question  discussed  in  the 
article  itself  went,  at  the  time  of  the  Eeformation  and  the  Council  of  Trent, 
under  that  name.  All  questions  concerning  merit  de  com/riio,  and  works  done  be- 
fore grace,  were  considered  as  embraced  in  the  general  term,  "The  question 
concerning  works  before  justification."  The  article  itself  says  nothing  about 
justification.  All  that  it  determines  is,  that  in  order  for  works  to  be  acceptable 
to  God,  they  must  be  done  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  must  spring  from  a  prin- 
ciple of  faith. 

But  as  this  article  is  not  in  our  Confession,  we  have  no  more 
to  do  with  it  than  to  make  this  reference  to  it  as  it  stands  related 
to  our  article  "  Of  Good  Works." 

§  5,  Definition  of  Good  Works. 

It  may  be  said,  in  general,  that  every  thing  which  God  has 
commanded,  and  which  is  done  because  God  has  commanded  it, 


-  "  AVesley's  Sermons,"  Vol.  TV.,  pp.  123-125. 


132 


Good  Works. 


his  Spirit  moving  thereto,  and  his  grace  assisting  in  its  perform- 
ance, is  a  good  work,  by  whomsoever  performed. 

Tf  done  t'obey  ihy  laws, 

E'en  servile  labors  shine: 
Hallowed  is  toil  if  this  the  cause — 

The  meanest  task  divine. 

§  6.  Scriptural  Examples  Considered. 
From  the  days  of  Clement  to  the  present,  the  question  has 
been  discussed  whether  or  not  the  good  acts  of  the  grateful  Naa- 
man,  the  repentant  Ninevites,  the  pious  Cornelius,  and  the  Gen- 
tiles spoken  of  in  Rom.  ii.,  are  to  be  considered  as  good  works, 
pleasing  and  acceptable  to  God,  inasmuch  as  those  who  performed 
them  knew  nothing  of  justification,  or  of  faith  in  Christ,  as  its 
condition.  It  is  not  surprising  that  the  question  has  generally 
been  decided  in  their  favor;  it  is  surprising  that  any  sensible 
man  should  have  decided  otherwise.  The  Scriptures  say  that 
these  pious  heathen  were  accepted  of  God,  and  that  settles  the 
question.  God  approves  of  every  thing  that  is  good  in  itself,  and 
considers  it  a  good  work  in  him  who  performs  it — whether  he  be 
Gentile,  Jew,  or  Christian — as  "  the  grace  of  Christ  and  the  in- 
spiration of  his  Spirit "  are  as  "  wide  as  the  reach  of  Satan's 
rage,"  and  co-extensive  with  the  universal  atonement.  It  was  in 
reference  to  one  of  the  cases  adduced — that  of  Cornelius — that 
Peter  said:  "Of  a  truth,  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of 
persons;  but  in  every  nation,  he  that  feareth  him,  and  worketli 
righteousness,  is  accepted  of  him."  (Acts  x.  34,  35. )  And  this 
chapter  shows  that  though  no  good  works  "  make  men  meet  to 
receive  grace,  or,  as  the  school  authors  say,  deserve  grace  of  con- 
gruity,"  yet  Cornelius's  fear  of  God,  fasting,  alms,  and  prayer, 
were  "  had  in  remembrance  before  God,"  and  his  improvement 
of  preventing  grace  led  to  the  bestowment  of  more  grace,  and 
resulted  in  his  salvation.  This  is  God's  method.  It  is  absurd 
to  speak  of  any  merit  on  the  part  of  man,  whether  of  condignity 
or  of  congruity. 

Thou  all  our  works  in  us  hast  wrought, 

Our  good  is  all  divine: 
The  praise  of  every  virtuous  thought 

And  righteous  word  is  thine. 
From  tliee.  through  Jesus,  we  receive 

The  power  on  thee  to  call, 
In  whom  we  are  and  move  and  live — 

Our  God  is  all  in  all! 


CHAPTER  II. 

RELATION  OF  GOOD  WORKS  TO  SIN  AND  DIVINE 
JUDGMENT. 

Or  good  works  done  after  justification  two  things  are  denied. 

§  1.  Good  Works  Cannot  Put  Away  Sin. 
It  is  denied  that  they  can  put  away  sin. 

As  the  notion  that  any  works  performed  by  us  can  atone  for 
our  past  sins  is  so  preposterous,  one  might  wonder  why  this 
clause  was  inserted  in  the  article.  But  the  reason  can  be  found 
in  the  abuse  of  some  of  the  unguarded  expressions  of  the  Fa- 
thers and  schoolmen.  Hermas  speaks  of  the  martyrs  having 
"all  their  offenses  blotted  out,  because  they  have  suffered  death 
for  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God."  Tertullian  says,  "All  sins 
are  forgiven  to  martyrdom."  Tliey  held  that  baptism  cleansed 
away  all  previous  sins,  and  inferred  that  the  baptism  of  blood 
(by  which  they  meant  martyrdom)  had  all  the  virtue  of  the  bap- 
tism of  water.  It  is  thus  that  one  error  begets  another.  The 
schoolmen  held  to  merit  of  congruity  before  justification,  and 
merit  of  condignity  after.  They  did  not  really  mean  to  say  that 
the  merit  of  either  sort  atoned  for  sin;  but  their  doctrine  tended 
to  this  view,  which  was  held  by  many  in  the  Eomish  Church. 
Indeed,  they  held  that  a  man  might  merit  so  much  of  God  as  to 
have  his  good  works  set  down  to  the  credit  of  others  £or  the  for- 
giveness of  their  sins!  So  great  development  is  there  in  error! 
Now,  it  is  impossible  to  see  what  atoning  merit  there  can  be  in 
the  good  works  of  any  one,  saint  or  angel.  All  are  under  law 
to  God,  and  are  bound  to  obey  him.  Their  obedience  requires 
all  their  powers  and  demands  all  their  time.  Where  then  can 
there  be  any  merit?  What  time  can  there  be  for  the  perform- 
ance of  good  works,  not  required  for  the  present,  which  can  be 
put  down  as  an  offset  to  sins  committed  in  the  past? 

AVhat  though  my  life  henceforth  be  thine, 

Present  for  past  can  ne'er  atone; 
Though  I  to  thee  the  whole  resign, 

I  only  give  thee  back  thine  own. 

(133) 


134 


Good  Works. 


Suppose  it  possible  to  perform  every  duty  in  perfection ;  sup- 
pose tliat  every  day  and  every  moment  we  love  the  Lord  our 
God  with  all  our  heart,  with  all  our  soul,  with  all  our  mind,  with 
all  our  strength,  and  our  neighbor  as  ourselves,  and  that  with- 
out any  of  the  infirmities  which  cleave  to  us  in  this  life,  but 
with  the  perfection  of  angels — what  then?  The  Saviour  tells 
us:  "So  likewise  ye,  when  ye  shall  have  done  all  those  things 
which  are  commanded  you,  say,  We  are  unprofitable  servants: 
we  have  done  that  which  v^^as  our  duty  to  do."  (Luke  xvii.  10.) 
We  have  just  done  our  duty,  nothing  more.  We  are  unprofit- 
able servants,  that  is,  we  bring  no  profit  to  our  divine  Master. 
"Can  a  man  be  profitable  unto  God,  as  he  that  is  wise  may  be 
profitable  unto  himself?  Is  it  any  pleasure  to  the  Almighty, 
that  thou  art  righteous?  or  is  it  gain  to  him,  that  thou  makest 
thy  ways  perfect?"  (Job  xxii.  2,  3.)  "  Thou  art  my  Lord:  my 
goodness  extended  not  to  thee;  but  to  the  saints  that  are  in  the 
earth."  (Ps.  xvi.  2,  3.)  These  passages  show  that  while  a  man 
benefits  himself  and  his  neighbor  by  his  goodness,  he  cannot 
therel^y  benefit  the  infinite  Jehovah,  so  as  to  make  amends  for 
any  sins  that  he  may  have  committed  against  him.  And  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  however  much  we  may  wrong  our  neigh- 
bor, sins,  in  the  proper  sense,  have  God  for  their  object,  and 
"none  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only."  David  had  done  great 
wrong  against  Uriah  and  Bathsheba  and  his  own  family,  yet 
when  he  seeks  forgiveness  of  sin  he  comes  to  God  for  it,  and,  in 
that  regard,  loses  sight  of  all  others  whom  he  may  have  injured. 
"  Have  mercy  upon  me,  O  God,  according  to  thy  loving-kind- 
ness: according  unto  the  multitude  of  thy  tender  mercies,  blot 
out  my  tra'nsgressions.  Against  thee,  thee  only,  have  I  sinned, 
and  done  this  evil  in  thy  sight."  (Ps.  H.  1-4.)  He  confesses  his 
sin  to  God;  he  asks  forgiveness  of  God;  he  pleads  nothing  but 
the  mercy  of  God;  he  promises  future  obedience'  but  never 
dreamed  that  that  would,  in  the  slightest  degree,  "put  away  his 
sin." 

§  2.  Good  Works  Cannot  Endure  the  Divine  Scrutiny. 

The  article  proceeds  to  say  that  our  good  works  cannot  endure 
the  severity  of  God's  judgment. 

This  opposes  the  doctrine  of  merit  de  condigno,  already  con- 
sidered. As  our  good  works  cannot  put  away,  (expiare)  atone 
for  past  sins,  so  they  cannot  merit  eternal  life.    By  the  severity 


Ildation  of  Good  Works  to  Sin  and  Divine  Judgment.  135 


of  God's  judgment  ws  are  to  understand  the  strict  scrutiny 
wliicli  lie  Aviii  make  into  all  our  actions  in  the  day  of  judgment, 
when  he  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  all  hearts.  "Tor  God  shall 
bring  every  ^vork  into  judgment,  with  every  secret  thing,  wheth- 
er it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil."    (Eccl.  xii.  14.) 

Allowing  it  possible  for  any  one  to  use  preventing  grace  till  it 
develops  into  regenerating  and  sanctifying  grace,  and  to  use  the 
latter  all  through  life,  so  as  never  to  commit  actual  sin,  and  sup- 
posing any  one  were  thus  to  live,  would  he  possess  merit  de  con- 
digno?  Would  he  deserve  heaven?  Would  he  have  rendered 
the  quid  pro  quo,  so  as  to  be  entitled  to  eternal  life?  Granted 
that  his  good  works  were  performed  by  the  power  of  Christ  and 
through  the  Spirit,  would  they,  after  undergoing  the  severity  of 
God's  judgment,  be  pronounced  so  meritorious  as  to  deserve 
everlasting  life?  They  would  not.  The  merit,  after  all,  comes 
from  Christ:  the  j^ower  of  performance  from  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Besides,  if  we  could  find  a  real  character  corresponding  to  this 
abstract  ideal,  we  should  still  find  in  him,  not  an  angel,  not 
an  unfallen  human  being,  but  one  who  brought  with  him  into 
the  world  a  depraved  nature,  a  soul  affected  in  every  depart- 
ment, intellect,  sensibility,  and  will,  by  original  sin,  and  a  body 
subject  to  appetites  and  infirmities  and  temptations,  which, 
whether  he  so  wills  it  or  not,  very  greatly  interferes  with  the 
obedience  which  a  creature  made  in  the  image  of  God  owes  to 
his  Creator.  The  severity  of  God's  judgment  takes  all  these 
into  consideration,  and  he  is  forced  to  pronounce  adversely  to 
any  claim  which  such  a  man  might  be  supposed  to  make  on  the 
score  of  merit,  for  the  rewards  of  heaven.  Indeed,  such  a  man 
would  be  the  last  to  make  such  a  claim.  Such  a  man  in  life 
would  say, 

Every  moment,  Lord,  I  want 
The  merit  of  thy  death* 

and  at  its  close  he  would  still  say, 

Onr  title  to  heaven  his  merits  -we  take. 

But  how  stands  the  case  actually — not  the  ideal,  but  the  real  ? 
How  is  it  with  us,  "after  justification?"  We  are  regenerated, 
and  so  bring  forth  good  works.  But  how  often  do  we  pray  God 
to  forgive-  the  iniquity  of  unholy  things!  How  do  we  mourn 
over  our  proneness  to  wander  from  God — "our  scanty  grace;" 
our  neglect  of  duty;  our  imperfect  performance  of  it;  our  "se- 


136 


Good  Works, 


cret  faults,"  when  we  are  not  chargeable  with  "presumptuous 
sins;"  our  slowness  in  cleansing  ourselves  from  all  filthiness  of 
the  flesh  and  spiiit  and  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God! 
We  never  knew  a  Christian  who  did  not  have  to  pray,  "  Forgive 
us  our  trespasses."  *'And  enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy  serv- 
ant; for  in  thy  sight  shall  no  man  living  be  justified."  (Ps. 
cxliii.  2. )  "  Lord,  hear  my  voice :  let  thine  ears  be  attentive  to  the 
voice  of  my  supplications.  If  thou,  Lord,  shouldst  mark  iniqui- 
ties, O  Lord,  who  shall  stand  ?  But  there  is  forgiveness  with  thee, 
that  thou  mayest  be  feared."    (Ps.  cxxx.  2-4.) 

If  we  can  detect  and  censure  our  secret  faults,  how  much 
more  shall  the  severity  of  God's  judgment  bring  them  to  light, 
and  show  them  in  their  true  character  and  just  deserts!  AVe 
may  see  no  defects  in  certain  performances,  and  they  may  be  ex- 
tolled by  others  as  perfect  and  highly  meritorious,  but  we  must 
remember  the  language  of  Paul,  But  with  me  it  is  a  very  small 
thing  that  I  should  be  judged  of  you,  or  of  man's  judgment: 
yea,  I  judge  not  mine  own  self.  For  I  know  nothing  by  myself;'-^' 
yet  am  I  not  hereby  justified:  but  he  that  judgeth  me  is  the 
Lord."    (1  Cor.  iv.  3,4) 

But  we  need  not  enlarge  on  this  subject  in  this  place,  as  the 
folly  of  claiming  justification  here  or  hereafter  on  the  score  of 
human  merit  was  fully  shown  in  the  exposition  of  the  Ninth 
Article. 

*  The  Kevised  Version  translates,  "  For  I  know  nothing  against  myself."  The 
Greek  is  ovdev  yap  euavru  avvoLda;  "  for  I  am  conscious  of  nothing  against  myself."' 
— T. 


CHAPTKR  III. 


POSITIVE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  GOOD  WORKS. 

I.  Good  Works  Acceptable  to  God. 
The  first  of  the  two  points  affirmed  in  the  present  article  is 
this:  that  though  our  good  works  have  no  merit,  "yet  are  they 
pleasing  and  acceptable  to  God  in  Christ."  They  must  be  pleas- 
ing and  acceptable  to  God,  because  (1)  they  are  performed  ac- 
cording to  his  will,  (2)  by  the  help  of  his  grace,  and  (3)  to  the 
glory  of  his  name. 

§  1.  Good  Works  Divinely  Prescribed. 

Good  -works  are  such  as  are  divinely  prescribed  according  to 
the  will  of  God. 

We  are  not  left  to  nature's  voice, 
To  know  and  serve  the  Lord. 

AVe  do  not  ascertain  our  duty  merely  by  the  light  of  nature, 
conscience,  or  philosophy.  These  of  themselves  are  mere  icjnes 
fatiiiy  which  bewilder,  but  do  not  guide  us  into  the  good  and  the 
right  way.  Man  has  neither  the  capacity,  because  of  the  igno- 
rance of  his  mind  in  his  fallen  state;  nor  the  prerogative,  because 
he  is  a  subject,  not  a  sovereign,  and  a  rebellious  subject  in  that 
state  of  depravity;  so  that  "the  race  "  of  duty  must  be  "set  be- 
fore him."  God  himself  must  prescribe  his  duty;  then  there 
will  be  the  necessary  elements  in  a  perfect  legislation:  certainty 
and  authority.  This  sets  aside  all  will  worship  and  work.  God 
censured  the  Jew^s,  because,  says  he,  "  their  fear  toward  me  is 
taught  by  the  precept  of  men."  (Isa.  xxix.  13.)  Or,  as  it  is 
expressed  by  our  Lord,  "  In  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching 
for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men,"  (Mark  vii.  7;  cf. 
Col.  ii.  20-23.) 

God  has  not  left  himself  without  witness  as  the  great  Law- 
giver, nor  has  he  left  us  without  instruction  as  to  wdiat  he  re- 
quires of  us.  He  wrote  his  laAv  on  two  tables  of  stone;  he 
caused  it  to  be  written,  amplified,  and  explained  in  his  Holy 
Word;  he  transcribes  it  by  his  Spirit  on  the  fieshly  tables  of  our 
hearts.    "He  hath  show^ed  thee,  O  man,  what  is  good;  and  what 

(137) 


138 


Good  Works. 


doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee  but  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy, 
and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God?"  (Midah  vi.  8.)  "Thou 
shall  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy 
soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind.  This  is  the  'first  and  great  com- 
mandment. And  the  second  is  like  unto  it,  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself.  On  these  two  commandments  hang  all  the 
law  and  the  prophets."  (Matt.  xxii.  37-40.)  "  The  fruit  of  the 
Spirit  is  love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  gentleness,  goodness, 
faith,  meekness,  temperance :  against  such  there  is  no  law.  And 
they  that  are  Christ's  have  crucified  the  flesh  with  the  affections 
and  lusts."  (Gal.  v.  22-24)  "  For  by  grace  are  ye  saved  through 
faith;  and  that  not  of  yourselves:  it  is  the  gift  of  God:  not  of 
works,  lest  any  man  should  boast.  For  Ave  are  his  workmanship 
created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  which  God  hath  before 
ordained  that  we  should  walk  in  them."  (Eph.  ii.  8-10.)  "  What- 
soever things  are  true,  wdiatsoever  things  are  honest,  whatsoever 
things  are  just,  whatsoever  things,  are  pure,  whatsoever  things 
are  lovely,  whatsoever  things  are  of  good  report;  if  there  be  any 
virtue,  and  if  there  be  any  praise,  think  on  these  things."  (Phil, 
iv.  8.) 

To  set  forth  our  duty  with  the  greatest  ^perspicuity,  authority, 
and  attractiveness,  the  Eternal  Word  Avas  sent  into  the  world  to 
make  a  revelation  of  the  mind  and  will  of  God  to  man,  and  to 
illustrate  it  in  his  own  beautiful  example  of  incarnate  virtue: 
imitable,  because  he  Avas  man  as  A\^ell  as  God;  and  Avorthy  of  all 
imitation,  because  he  Avas  God  as  well  as  man. 

Truly  good  works,  performed  in  accordance  Avitli  such  divine 
prescription  and  after  such  a  model,  cannot  but  be  pleasing  and 
acceptable  to  God. 

§  2.  Good  Works  Performed  by  Divine  Grace. 

Good  works  are  such  as  are  performed  by  the  aid  of  divine 
grace.  The  good  works  in  question  are  those  Avhicli  follow  after 
justification.  It  must  not  be  imagined  that  when  a  man  is  re- 
generated his  powers  are  so  sanctified  and  strengthened  that  he 
can  perform  his  duty  independently  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  assist- 
ance, or  that  "  a  stock  of  grace  "  is  given  to  him  which  Avill  last 
him  for  life.  No,  verily,  as  he  every  moment  needs  the  merit 
of  the  Son  to  keep  him  in  a  state  of  justification,  so  every 
moment  he  needs  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  to  keep  him  in  a  state 


Positive  Chayacteristics  of  Good  W orks. 


139 


of  holiness,  and  to  enable  liim  to  every  good  word  and  work. 
"  Lord,  thou  wilt  ordain  peace  for  us:  for  thou  also  hast  wrought 
all  our  works  in  us."  (Isa.  xxvi.  12.)  "  For  this  cause  I  bow  my 
knees  unto  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  of  whom  the 
whole  family  in  heaven  and  earth  is  named,  that  he  would  grant 
you,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  glory,  to  be  strengthened  with 
might  by  his  spirit  in  the  inner  man;  that  Christ  may  dwell  in 
your  hearts  by  faith ;  that  ye,  being  rooted  and  grounded  in  love, 
may  be  able  to  comprehend  with  all  saints  what  is  the  breadth, 
and  length,  and  depth,  and  height;  and  to  know  the  love  of 
Christ,  which  passeth  knowledge,  that  ye  might  be  filled  with  all 
the  fullness  of  God.  Now  unto  him  that  is  able  to  do  exceeding 
abundantly  above  all  that  we  ask  or  think,  according  to  the 
power  that  worketli  in  us,  unto  him  be  glory  in  the  Church  by 
Christ  Jesus  throughout  all  ages,  world  without  end.  Amen." 
(Eph.  iii.  14-21.)  "  Work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and 
trembling:  for  it  is  God  which  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and 
to  do  of  his  good  pleasure."  (Phil.  ii.  12,  13.)  "Now  the  God 
of  peace  make  you  perfect  in  every  good  work  to  do  his  will, 
working  in  you  that  which  is  well  pleasing  in  his  sight,  through 
Jesus  Christ."  (Heb.  xiii.  20,  21.)  "  Now  unto  him  that  is  able 
to  keep  you  from  falling,  and  to  present  you  faultless  before  the 
presence  of  his  glory  with  exceeding  joy,  to  the  only  wise  God 
our  Saviour,  be  glory  and  majesty,  dominion  and  power,  both 
now  and  ever.    Amen."    (Jude  24,  25.) 

We  could  multiply  synergistic  passages  of  this  sort,  showing 
that  while  ^-ace  cannot  perform  these  good  works  without  our  co- 
operation, w^e  cannot  perform  them  w  ithout  the  aid  of  grace.  But 
we  have  fully  discussed  this  subject  under  the  Eighth  Article. 
It  requires  no  argument  to  prove  that  the  works  performed  by 
the  power  of  the  Spirit  and  grace  of  God  are  "  well  pleasing  in 
his  sight,  through  Jesus  Christ." 

§  3.  Good  Works  Redound  to  the  Divine  Glory. 

Good  works  are  such  as  are  performed  to  the  glory  of  God. 
The  fanatical  doctrine  that  the  end  justifies  and  sanctifies  the 
means,  no  matter  what  they  may  be,  is  indeed  detestable.  Bob- 
bery and  lying  and  murder,  forsooth,  are  all  right  if  done  ad 
majoram  cjhriam  Dei — to  the  greater  glory  of  God!  Paul  indig- 
nantly denounces  this  diabolical  casuistry:  "  For  if  the  truth  of 


140 


Good  Works. 


God  hath  more  abounded  through  my  lie  unto  his  glory;  why  yet 
am  I  also  judged  as  a  sinner?  And  not  rather  (as  we  be  slander- 
ously reported,  and  as  some  affirm  that  we  say),  Let  us  do  evil,  that 
good  may  come?  whose  damnation  is  just."    (Eom.  iii.  7,  8.) 

But  any  action,  not  in  itself  immoral,  becomes  a  good  work, 
when  performed  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God,  by  his  help 
and  to  his  glory. 

The  Scriptures  abound  wdth  exhortations,  prayers,  and  exam- 
ples, to  this  effect.  "  Give  unto  the  Lord  the  glory  due  unto  his 
name."  (Ps.  xxix.  2.)  "Whoso  offereth  praise  glorifieth  me; 
and  to  him  that  ordereth  his  conversation  aright  will  I  show  the 
salvation  of  God."  (Ps.  1.  23.)  "Let  your  light  so  shine  be- 
fore men,  that  they  may  see  j^our  good  works  and  glorify  your 
Father  wdiich  is  in  heaven."  (Matt.  v.  16.)  "Herein  is  my 
father  glorified,  that  ye  bear  much  fruit,  so  shall  ye  be  my  dis- 
ciples." (John  XV.  8.)  "  "Whether  therefore  ye  eat,  or  drink,  or 
whatsoever  ye  do,  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God."  (1  Cor.  x.  31.) 
"And  they  glorified  God  in  me."  (Gal.  i.  24)  "And  this  I  pray  that 
your  love  may  abound  yet  more  and  more  in  knowledge  and  in 
all  judgment;  that  ye  may  approve  things  that  are  excellent;  that 
ye  may  be  sincere  and  wdthout  offense  till  the  day  of  Christ;  be- 
ing filled  with  the  fruits  of  righteousness,  which  are  by  Jesus 
Christ,  unto  the  glory  and  praise  of  God."  (Phil.  i.  9-11.)  "And 
whatsoever  ye  do  in  word  or  deed,  do  all  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  giving  thanks  to  God  and  the  Father  by  him."  (Col.  iii. 
17.)  "  Dearly  beloved,  I  beseech  you,  as  strangers  and  pil- 
grims, abstain  from  fleshly  lusts,  wdiich  war  against  the  soul; 
having  your  conversation  honest  among  the  Gentiles;  that, 
whereas  they  speak  against  you  as  evil  doers,  they  may  by  your 
good  works,  which  they  shall  behold,  glorify  God  in  the  day  of 
visitation."  (1  Pet.  ii.  11,  12.)  Such  passages  might  be  multi- 
plied; let  these  suffice. 

The  actions  which  w-e  perform  in  accordance  with  his  will,  and 
by  the  aid  of  his  grace,  will  be  sure  to  redound  to  his  glory,  be- 
cause they  illustrate  his  i)erfections,  recognize  his  authority, 
magnify  his  government,  advance  his  cause,  benefit  his  creatures, 
and  secure  our  own  welfare.  It  needs  no  argument  or  Scripture 
testimony,  though  abundance  of  both  might  be  readily  fur- 
nished, to  prove  that  such  good  works  "  are  pleasing  and  accept- 
able to  God,  in  Christ." 


Positive  Characteristics  of  Good  W orks. 


141 


We  should  keep  this  golden  triad  like  a  phylactery  on  our 
head  and  heart  and  hands: 

Our  strength,  tliy  grace;  our  rule  thy  word; 
Our  end,  the  glory  of  the  Lord! 


11.  Good  Works  the  Fruit  of  Faith. 

The  article  further  affirms  of  good  works  that  they  "spring 
out  of  a  true  and  lively  faith,  insomuch  that  by  them  a  lively 
faith  may  be  as  evidently  known  as  a  tree  is  discerned  by  its 
fruit." 

§  1.  Contrast  of  Living  and  Dead  Faith. 

The  framers  of  the  article  evidently  had  in  view  the  contrast 
between  a  true  and  a  living  faith  and  a  false  and  a  dead  faith,  in 
James  ii.  14-26.  Here  the  Apostle  tells  us  that  a  faith  which 
consists  merely  in  the  assent  of  the  mind  to  any  proposition — 
say  the  existence  of  one  God — being  inoperative,  is  utterly  Avorth- 
less.  "  Thou  believest  there  is  one  God;  thou  doest  well " — that 
is,  the  proposition  is  correct;  "the  devils  also  believe  and  trem- 
ble. But  wilt  thou  know;  O  vain  man,  that  faith  without  Avorks  is 
dead?  For  as  the  body  without  the  spirit  is  dead,  so  faith  with- 
out works  is  dead  also."  A  living  faith  is  operative,  product- 
ive: it  worketli  by  love,  purifieth  the  heart,  overcometli  the 
world,  and  quencheth  all  the  fiery  darts  of  the  wicked  one. 

This  is  the  faith  of  which  Paul  speaks  in  Rom.  x.  10:  "For 
with  the  heart  man  believetli  unto  righteousness;  and  with  the 
mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation."  Heart  here  means 
"  the  inwai'd  man,"  "  the  hidden  man  of  the  heart,"  the  soul,  or 
spiritual  nature  of  man,  as  distinct  from  "the  outward  man," 
the  body  and  the  external  life. 

The  faith  of  the  heart,  then,  is  the  assent  of  the  intellect  to 
the  gospel,  together  with  the  consent  of  the  affections,  and  the 
concurrence  of  the  will  as  the  conative  working  power  of  the 
soul.  Hence  it  is  said  "  with  the  heart  man  believetli  unto 
righteousness."  His  faith,  in  the  order  of  thought,  first  justi- 
fies, but  in  the  order  of  time  there  is  no  difference;  it  renews,  as 
an  instrument,  the  moral  nature,  so  that  in  the  same  instant 
a  man  is  born  again.  "But  now  being  made  free  from  sin,  and 
become  servants  of  God,  ye  have  your  fruit  unto  holiness  and 
the  end  everlasting  life."  (Rom.  vi.  22;  cf.  John  i.  12, 18;  Rom. 
viii.  1-17;  2  Cor.  v.  17.) 


142 


Good  Works. 


This  faith  brings  "  the  Invisible  to  sight,"  and  so  fastens  our 
eyes  upon  the  glorious  object  that  we  experience  an  assimilating 
power,  so  that  we  become  like  that  which  thus  absorbs  our  at- 
tention. "  But  we  all,  ^vith  open  face  beholding  as  in  a  glass  the 
glory  of  the  Lord,  are  changed  into  the  same  image  from  glory 
to  glory,  even  as  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord."  (2  Cor.  iii.  18;  cf.  1 
John  iii.  3;  iv.  17.) 

Faith  is  a  receiving  and  appropriating  grace.  It  receives  and 
appropriates  the  merit  of  Christ  for  justification,  and  also  the 
power  of  the  spirit  for  sanctification  and  every  good  work.  This 
is  God's  established  method:  "God  hath  from  the  beginning 
chosen  you  to  salvation,  through  sanctification  of  the  spirit  and 
belief  of  the  truth."    (2  Thess.  ii.  13.) 

§  2.  Our  Lord's  Test. 

This  is  our  Lord's  test:  "  Every  good  tree  bringeth  forth  good 
fruit;  but  a  corruy^t  tree  bringeth  forth  evil  fruit.  A  good  tree 
cannot  bring  forth  evil  fruit;  neither  can  a  corrupt  tree  bring 
forth  good  fruit.  Therefore  by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them." 
(Matt.  vii.  17-20;  cf.  Matt.  xii.  33-37;  1  John  iii.  7.)  Hypocrites 
may  indeed  for  awhile  simulate  the  virtues  of  the  righteous;  but 
they  will  not  long  escape  detection;  and  in  every  case  the  tares 
will  be  distinguished  from  the  wheat  when  the  reaping-time  shall 
come.  The  corrupt  tree  shall  be  known  by  its  fruits,  the  bar- 
ren tree  by  its  having  "nothing  but  leaves;"  and  it  shall  be 
cut  down  and  cast  into  the  fire.  Factitious  virtues,  as  they 
spring  from  no  internal  source  of  vitality,  will  soon  shrivel  and 
fall.  One  of  our  missionaries  in  Shanghai  told  us  that  a  China- 
man once  sold  him  a  beautiful  j^each-tree  whose  fruitful ness  was 
attested  by  the  multitude  of  liiscious  peaches  that  were  on  its 
branches.  He  paid  a  high  price  for  so  rare  a  tree.  But,  on  look- 
ing at  it  a  few  days  after,  he  found  that  all  the  peaches  were 
shriveled  and  dead.  On  examination  he  ascertained  that  they 
were  fastened  to  the  boughs  by  pins:  they  were  not  produced 
by  the  tree,  which  was  worthless. 

But  if  good  fruit  be  produced  by  a  tree  we  pronounce  that  tree 
good;  all  the  world  calls  it  a  good  tree.  If  a  tree  produces  no 
fruit,  or  bad  fruit,  if  no  good  fruit  grows  upon  it,  no  one  calls 
it  a  good  tree.  It  is  all  one  to  say  that  good  works  are  the  fruits 
of  faith,  or  of  the  spirit,  or  of  the  renewed  nature.  The  re- 
newed nature  is  the  soil  out  of  which  they  grow;  the  Spirit  ere- 


Positive  Characteristics  of  Good  Works. 


143 


ates  that  renewed  nature,  gives  the  nurture  and  heat  necessary 
for  the  development  of  the  fruit,  and  faith  which  is  of  the  op- 
eration of  God,  is  the  instrumental  agency  by  which  all  the  proc- 
esses are  carried  on  to  perfection. 

We  thus  see  that  this  article  is  complemental  to  that  on  justi- 
fication, and  guards  it  effectually  from  all  Antiiiomian  perver- 
sion and  abuse. 

§3.  Dr.  Pope  on  ''Living  Faith. 

[The  expression  Hving  faitli,  just  used,  suggests  the  vital  relation  of  this  sub- 
ject to  union  with  Christ.  When  St.  Paul  says  "that  we  might  be  made  the  right- 
eousness of  God  in  him"  (2  Cor.  v.  21),  the  word  yivujueOa  means  more  than  tJie 
non-imputation  of  sin  which  has  been  spoken  of  before.  ''That  we  might  be- 
come:" our  forensic  justification  being  included  of  necessity',  our  moral  conformity 
to  the  divine  righteousness  cannot  be  excluded.  Tiiese  closing  words  are  a  re- 
sumption, but  in  a  more  emphatic  and  enlarged  form,  of  the  preceding  paragraph, 
which  ended  with  "If  any  man  be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new  creature."  "The  right- 
eousness of  God  in  him  "  is  the  full  realization  of  the  new  method  of  conforming  us 
to  liis  attribute  of  righteousness.  It  is  impossible  to  establish  the  distinction  be- 
tween in  Christ  for  external  righteousness,  and  Christ  in  us  for  righteousness  inter- 
nal. These  are  only  diflerent  aspects  of  one  and  the  same  union  with  Christ. 
Still,  the  distinction'may  be  used  for  illustration.  We  are  "accepted  in  the  Be- 
loved, in  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins," 
in  order  that  "Christ  may  dwell  in  your  hearts  by  faith:"  that  his  grace  "  may 
present  every  man  perfect  in  Christ  Jesus."  (Eph.  i.  6,  7;  iii.  17;  Col.  i.  28.) 
The  vital  union  of  faith  secures  both  objects:  our  being  reckoned  as  righteous  be- 
cause found  in  him,  and  our  being  made  righteous  because  he  is  in  us  as  the  Spirit 
of  life  and  strength  unto  all  obedience:  "that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  may 
be  fulfilled  in  us."  (Rom.  viii..2,  4.)  "He  that  is  joined  to  the  Lord  is  one 
Spirit"  (1  Cor.  vi.  17),  and  this  Holy  Spirit,  common  to  Him  and  to  us,  gradually 
realizes  the  ideal  righteousness  of  God  within  by  a  sure  necessity.  ...  St. 
Paul  and  St.  James  agree  that  the  state  of  justification  is  that  of  a  "  faith  which 
worketh  bv  love."  (Gal.  v.  6.)  St.  John  mediates,  "  He  that  doeth  righteousness 
is  righteous"  (1  John  iii.  7):  this  would  be  tautology  did  he  not  mean  that  the 
righteous  man — he  who  in  the  well-known  terminology  of  St,  Paul,  which  St. 
John  does  not  use,  is  the  justified  man — is  one  who  worketh  righteousness,  "even 
as  He.is  righteous"  who  is  the  Author  and  Finisher  and  Pattern  of  human  right- 
eousness." *  ] 

Tope's  '•  Compendium,"  etc.,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  416,  ill. 


PART  V. 
ARTICLE  XI. 

Of  Works  of  Supererogation. 

Voluntary  works,  besides  over  and  above  God's  commandments, 
ivhich  are  called  works  of  supererogation,  cannot  be  taught  tvitJiout 
arrogancij  and  impiety.  For  by  them  men  do  declare  that  they  do 
not  only  render  vnto  God  as  much  as  they  are  bound  to  do,  but 
that  they  do  more  for  his  sake  than  of  bounden  duty  is  required  : 
whereas  Christ  saith  plainly,  Whe7i  ye  have  done  all  that  is  com- 
manded you,  say.  We  are  tmprofitahle  servants. 


Introduction. 

This  article  corresponds  to  Article  XIV.  of  the  Anglican  Con- 
fession, except  that  the  words  "  which  are  called  "  are  substitut- 
ed for  ''which  they  call"^ — meaning  the  papists  —  and  "is 
commanded  you"  for  "are  commanded  to  you:"  unimportant 
alterations.  The  words  rr/>ra  t«,  in  Luke  xvii.  10,  are  rendered 
in  the  Yulgate  omnia  quoe,  but  in  the  Latin  recension  of  the 
article  omnia  quoecunque;  so  in  the  Defensio  of  Dr.  Jo.  Elis. 
Tyndale,  Cranmer,  Geneva,  have  "all  those  things  which  are 
commanded  you,"  as  in  the  Authorized  Version.  It  is  notewor- 
thy that  in  the  Latin  recension  the  explanation  of  opera,  quoe 
supererogationis  appellant  is  omitted.  Elis  does  not  ignore  it;  he 
renders,  opera  voluntaria  idtra  et  supra  Dei  prcecepta,  quce  I'ocant 
opera  supererogationis,  non  possunt  sine  arrogantia  et  impietate  do- 
ceri. 

tl44) 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  ROMAN  DOCTRINE  STATED. 
§1.  Supererogation  Defined. 

It  seems  proper,  then,  to  define  the  word  "  supererogation,"  as 
it  is  not  used  in  classical  Latin.  It  comes  from  super,  above,  and 
erogare,  to  expend,  or  pay  out  money,  and  it  is  thus  used  in  the 
Vulgate  of  Luke  x.  35:  Et  quodcimqiie  supererogareris,  which  is 
rendered  in  both  of  our  versions,  "And  whatsoever  thou  spendest 
more  " — that  is,  over  and  above  the  two  pence,  demariiy  paid  to 
the  host.  Supererogation  is  accordingly  used,  in  theology,  to  de- 
note the  doing  of  more  than  duty  requires — making  up  by  over- 
plus service  the  deficiency  of  others.  It  is  so  used  by  Milton: 
"  The  fervency  of  one  man  in  prayer  cannot  super erogate  for  the 
coldness  of  another." 

§  2.  A  Protestant  Article. 

At  first  view  it  seems  that  the  insertion  of  such  an  article  as 
this  in  the  Confession  is  itself  a  work  of  supererogation;  for 
who,  it  might  be  asked,  could  be  not  only  so  arrogant  and  impi- 
ous, but  so  ignorant  and  absurd,  as  to  think  he  can  do  more  than 
God  commands,  so  as  to  have  merit  which  may  be  transferred 
to  one  who  has  failed  in  his  duty  ? 

But  this  is  one  of  the  articles  of  a  Protestant  Confession;  and 
as  such  it  is  a  protest  against  the  popjish  doctrine  of  human 
merit  and  indulgences.  Preposterous  as  it  seems,  and  really  is, 
the  Komish  Church  teaches  that  men  can  perform  "  voluntary 
works  over  and  above  God's  commandments,  which  they  call 
works  of  supererogation."  The  Council  of  Trent,  indeed,  says 
nothing  of  "  works  of  supererogation,"  eo  nomine;  but  it  anath- 
ematizes those  who  say  indulgences  are  unprofitable,  and  these 
are  granted  by  the  Pope  on  the  ground  of  the  "deposit  "  consist- 
ing of  the  excess  of  merit  of  the  greater  saints,  intrusted  to  the 
Church,  and  at  the  disposal  of  its  visible  head.  Though  the 
scandalous  abuse  of  this  teaching,  Avhich  excited  the  indignation 
of  Luther  and  led  to  the  Eeformation,  is  not  so  wide-spread 
10  Vol.  II.  (145) 


146 


Works  of  Supererogatlo}!. 


now  as  when  Tetzel  hawked  indulgences  over  the  world,  yet  it 
still  obtains,  and  therefore  the  protest  against  it  is  no  anachro- 
nism ;  it  is  needed  in  the  nineteenth  century. 

§  3.  Sources  of  the  Error. 

It  may  be  difficult  to  trace  this  error  a  stirpe;  but  it  is  thought 
that  the  nucleus  of  it  may  be  found  in  the  unguarded  eulogies 
of  alms-giving  and  voluntary  poverty,  celibacy  and  martyrdom, 
in  the  writings  of  some  of  the  Fathers. 

The  post-exile  Jews  attributed  great  merit  to  alms-giving, 
making  it  a  defense  from  adversity  and  an  atonement  for  sin. 
(Tobit  iv.  10,  11;  Ecclus.  xxix.  10-13.)  Their  error  was  counte- 
nanced by  some  of  the  Fathers.  Chrysostom  says:  "  AVater  is 
not  more  adapted  to  wash  away  the  spots  of  the  body  than  the 
power  of  alms-deeds  is  to  cleanse  the  soul."  "  You  go  into  the 
church  to  obtain  mercy:  first  shovv  mercy — make  God  your 
debtor,  and  then  you  may  ask  of  him,  and  receive  with  usury." 
"If  many  barbarous  nations  burn  their  goods  together  with 
their  dead,  how  much  more  reasonable  it  is  for  you  to  give  your 
child  his  goods  when  he  is  dead!  Not  to  reduce  them  to  ashes, 
bat  to  make  him  the  more  glorious;  if  he  be  a  sinner,  to  procure 
him  pardon;  if  righteous,  to  add  to  his  reward  and  retribution." 
After  making  due  allowance  for  the  rhetorical  style  of  Chrysos- 
tom, we  cannot  but  censure  such  teaching;  it  sounds  more  like 
Eomish  than  Protestant  or  scriptural  doctrine.  In  such  pas- 
sages, found  in  the  Fathers,  we  trace  the  germ  of  the  heresy  in 
question.  {Cf.  Augustin's  "City  of  God,"  xxi.  27,  ad  finemj 
where  there  are  unguarded  expressions  of  a  similar  tone.) 

So  with  regard  to  celibacy.  The  merits  of  monkery  were  high- 
ly extolled  by  many  of  the  Fathers,  and  their  incautious  language 
has  given  countenance  to  the  shocking  abuses  of  popery  in  this 
matter.  In  the  discussion  of  Article  X.  we  noticed  the  undue 
importance  attached  to  martyrdom.  Hernias  says:  "All  the  of- 
fenses of  the  martyrs  were  blotted  out,  because  they  have  suf- 
fered death  for  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God."  (Simil.  ix.  29.) 
"All  sins,"  says  Tertullian,  "  are  forgiven  to  martyrdom."  Bish- 
ow  Browne  remarks:  "In  this  admiration  of  the  early  Church 
for  martyrdom,  and  in  the  admission  of  the  intercession  of  the 
martyrs  for  the  deliverance  of  others  from  church  censures,  we 
may  perhaps  trace  the  germ  of  the  doctrine  of  works  of  super- 


The  Roman  Doctrine  Stated. 


147 


erogation."  He  makes  a  similar  remark  in  regard  to  voluntary 
celibacy. 

§4.  Romish  Doctrine  of  Satisfaction. 

The  Romish  doctrine  of  satisfaction  embraces  this  heresy. 
The  mildest  form  in  which  it  is  set  forth  by  Ilomanists  is  in  the 
Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  "  On  the  Sacrament  of  Pen- 
ance: " 

In  satisfaction  two  things  are  particularly  required;  the  one,  that  he  who  sat- 
isfies be  in  a  state  of  grace,  the  friend  of  God:  works  done  without  faith  and  char- 
ity cannot  be  acceptable  to  God;  the  other,  that  the  works  performed  be  such  as 
are  of  their  own  nature  painful  or  laborious.  They  are  a  compensation  for  past 
sins,  and,  to  use  the  words  of  St.  Cyprian,  "  the  redeemers,  as  it  were,  of  sins,"  and 
must,  therefore,  be  such  as  we  have  described.  It  does  not,  however,  always  fol- 
low tiiat  they  are  painful  or  laborious  to  those  who  undergo  them:  the  influence 
of  habit  or  the  intensity  of  divine  love  frequently  renders  the  soul  insensible  to 
things  the  most  difficult  to  be  endured.  Such  works,  however,  do  not,  therefore, 
cease  to  be  satisfactory :  it  is  the  privilege  of  the  children  of  God  to  be  so  inflamed 
with  his  love,  that  wbilst  undergoing  the  most  cruel  tortures  for  his  sake,  they 
are  either  entirely  insensible  to  them,  or  at  least  bear  them  not  only  with  fortitude 
but  with  the  greatest  joy. 

The  pastor  will  teach  that  every  species  of  satisfaction  is  included  under- these 
three  heads,  prayer,  fasting,  and  alms-deeds,  which  corresponds  with  these  three 
sorts  of  goods,  those  of  the  soul,  of  the  body,  and  what  are  called  external  goods, 
all  of  which  are  the  gifts  of  God.  Than  these  three  sorts  of  satisfaction  nothing 
can  be  more  effectual  in  eradicating  sin  from  the  soul.  Whatever  is  in' the  world 
IS  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  the  "lust  of  the  eyes  or  pride  of  life,"  and  fasting,  alms- 
deeds,  and  prayer,  are,  it  is  obvious,  most  judiciously  employed  as  antidotes  to 
neutralize  the  operation  of  these  three  causes  of  spiritual  disease;  to  the  first  is 
opposed  fasting;  to  the  second,  alms-deeds;  to  the  third,  prayer.  If,  moreover, 
we  consider  those  whom  our  sins  injure,  we  shall  easily  perceive  why  all  satisfac- 
tion is  referred  principally  to  God,  to  our  neighbor,  and  to  ourselves;.  God  we  ap- 
pease by  prayer,  our  neighbor  we  satisfy  by  alms,  and  ourselves- we  chastise  by 
fasting. 

§  5.  Evangelical  Counsels. 

From  these  germs  has  developed  the  Romish  doctrine  of 
Evangelical  Counsels  (consilia  evangelica).  By  this  is  meant 
that  there  are  certain  meritorious  things  which  are  not  pvescrihed 
as  necessary  to  salvation,  but  which  are  advised  in  order  to  perfec- 
tion. Thus  Romanists  speak  of  voluntary  celibacy,  poverty,  and 
obedience  to  ecclesiastical  superiors  as  of  this  class,  in  which 
some  number  as  many  as  twelve  counsels.  The  "  Notes  of  Dif- 
ference between  Counsels  and  Commandments  Evangelical"  are 
developed  by  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor  (Ductor  Duhitantiumj  Bk.  ii.. 
Chap,  iii.,  Rule  12;  Works,  Yol.  iii.,  pp.  319,,  320): 


148 


^J^orks  of  Supererogation. 


1.  When  there  is  no  negative  expressed  or  involved,  tlien  it  cannot  be  a  law; 
but  it  is  a  counsel  evangelical.  For  in  every  law  there  is  a  degree  of  duty  so  nec- 
essary that  every  thing  less  than  it  is  a  direct  act  or  state  of  sin;  and,  therefore, 
if  the  law  be  affirmative  the  negative  is'included,  and  is  the  sanction  of  tlie  main 
duty,  etc. 

2.  AVhen  the  action  or  state  is  propounded  to  us  only  upon  the  account  of  re- 
ward, and  there  is  no  penalty  annexed,  then  it  is  counsel  and  no  law,  for  there  is 
no  legislative  power  where  there  is  no  coercitive,  etc.  ^. 

3.  In  counsels  sometimes  the  contrary  is  very  evil:  thus,  to  be  industrious  and 
holy,  zealous  and  prudent  in  the  ofiices  ecclesiastical,  and  to  take  .holy  orders  in 
the  days  of  persecution  and  discouragement,  is  an  instance  of  love,  I  doubt  not, 
very  pleasing  and  acceptable  to  God ;  and  yet  he  tiiat  suffers  himself  to  be  discour- 
aged from  that  particular  employment,  and  to  divert  to  some  other  instance  in 
which  he  may  well  serve  God,  may  remain  very  innocent  or  excusable;  but  tliose 
in  the  primitive  Church,  who  so  feared  the  persecution  or  the  employment  that 
they  cut  off  their  thumbs  or  ears  to  make  themselves  canonically  incapable,  were 
highly  culpable;  because  he  that  does  an  act  contrary  to  the  design  of  counsel 
evangelical  is  an  enemy  to  the  virtue  and  the  grace  of  the  intendment;  he  that  only 
lets  it  alone  does  not  indeed  venture  for  the  greater  reward,  but  he  may  pursue 
the  same  virtue  in  another  instance  or  in  a  less  degree,  but  yet  so  as  may  be  accept- 
ed, etc. 

4.  In  internal  actions  there  is  properly  and  directly  no  counsel,  but  a  law  only: 
counsels  of  perfections  are  commonly  the  great  and  more  advantageous  prosecu- 
tions of  an  internal  grace  or  virtue;  but  the  inward  cannot  be  hindered  by  any 
thing  from  without,  and,  therefore,  is  capable  of  all  increase  and  all  instances  only 
upon  the  account  of  love,  the  greatest  degree  of  which  is  not  greater  than  the 
commandment;  and  yet  the  least  degree,  if  it  be  sincere,  is  even  with  the  com- 
mandment, because  it  is  according  to  the  capacity  and  greatness  of  the  man. 

§  6.  Jeremy  Taylor  on  Luke  xvii.  lo. 
There  is  a  savor  of  Romish  casuistry  in  Taylor's  discussion, 
as  is  common  in  the  writings  of  this  learned  and  subtle  prelate. 
It  is  more  fully  disclosed  in  another  part  of  this  chapter,  where 
he  brings  oat  the  text  alluded  to  in  this  article  (Luke  xvii.  10), 
and  says  unguardedly: 

The  commandments  are  made  laws  to  us  only  by  threatenings;  for  when  we 
shall  receive  a  crown  of  righteousness  in  heaven,  that  is  by  way  of  gift  merely 
gratuitous,  but  the  pains  of  the  damned  are  due  to  thera  by  their  merit  and  by 
the  measures  of  justice;  and  therefore  it  is  remarkable  that  our  blessed  Saviour 
said,  "When  ye  have  done  all  that  ye  are  commanded,  ye  are  unprofitable  serv- 
ants;" that  is,  the  strict  measures  of  the  laws  or  the  commandments  given  to  you 
are  sucli,  which  if  ye  do  not  observe,  ye  shall  die,  according  to  the  sentence  of  the 
law;  but  if  ye  do,  "ye  are  yet  unprofitable;"  ye  have  not  deserved  the  good 
things  that  are  laid  up  for  loving  souls;  but  therefore  toward  that  we  must  su- 
peradd the  degrees  of  progression  and  growth  in  grace,  the  emanations  of  love  and 
zeal,  the  methods  of  perfection  and  imitation  of  Christ.  For  by  the  first  measures  we 
escape  hell ;  but  by  the  progressions  of  love  only,  and  the  increase  of  duty,  through 


The  Roman  Dodruie  Stated. 


149 


the  mercies  of  God  in  Christ,  we  arrive  at  lieaven.  Not  that  he  tiiat  escapes  liell 
may,  in  any  case  fail  of  heaven;  but  that  whosoever  does  obey  the  command- 
ment in  the  first  and  least  sense  will,  in  his  proportion,  grow  on  toward  perfec- 
tion. For  he  fails  in  the  first,  and  does  not  that  worthily,  who,  if  he  have  time, 
does  not  go  on  to  the  second?  ...  No  man  must,  in  the  keeping  of  the  com- 
mandments of  Christ,  set  himself  a  limit  of  duty,  "  Hitlierto  will  I  come,  and  no 
further;"  for  the  tree  that  does  not  grow  is  not  alive,  unless  it  already  have  all 
tlie  growth  it  can  have;  and  there  is  in  these  things  thus  much  of  a  law— evan- 
gelical counsels  are  thus  far  necessary,  that  although  in  them— that  is,  in  the  de- 
grees of  duty— there  are  no  certain  measures  described,  yet  we  are  obliged  to  pro- 
ceed from  beginnings  to  perfection. 

In  these  two  rhetorical  passages  Taylor  teaches  that  the  sanc- 
tions of  the  law  are  punishments,  and  not  also  rewards.  But 
the  Scriptures  enforce  obedience  to  the  law  by  the  latter  as  well 
as  by  the  former,  and  both  together  constitute  the  sanctions  of 
the  law.  "Blessed  are  they  that  do  his  commandments,  that 
thej^  may  have  right  to  the  tree  of  life,  and  may  enter  in  through 
the  gates  into  the  city."  (Rev.  xxii.  14.)  "For  we  must  all  ap- 
pear before  the  judgment-seat  of  Ckrist,  that  every  one  may  re- 
ceive the  things  done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  he  hath 
done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad."  {Cf.  Matt.  xxv. ;  Eom.  ii.  6-11; 
Gal.  vi.  7,  8;  Col.  iii.  23-25.)  The  "reward"  is  none  the  less 
"  the  gift  of  God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  "  (Bom.  vi.  23), 
because  it  is  given  ^s  a  recognition  of  obedience  to  the  law,  as 
we  have  elsewhere  shown.    (See  on  Article  X.) 

To  say  that  doing  all  the  things  that  are  commanded  does  not 
deserve  a  reward,  but  that  the  compliance  with  "  evangelical 
counsels"  or  "counsels  of  perfection"  does  deserve  it,  comes  very 
near  the  Bomish  doctrine  de  merito  condigno,  and  its  correlate, 
de  operibus  siipererofjationis,  against  which  this  article  is  leveled. 
Taylor  does  not,  indeed,  say  with  the  Bomish  casuists  that  these 
works  of  supererogation  can  be  transferred  to  the  benefit  of 
others,  to  commute  church  censures,  to  deliver  from  purgatory, 
or  to  purchase  heaven  for  them;  but  he  does  teach  that  these 
works  are  "  over  and  above  God's  commandments,"  and  as  such 
are  meritorious.    This  the  article  palpably  denies. 

§  7.  Exposition  of  Luke  xvii.  lo. 

It  may  be  said  that  Luke  xvii.  10,  cited  in  the  article,  does  not 
directly  prove  the  point  in  hand,  namely,  that  voluntary  works,  be- 
sides, over  and  above  God's  commandments,  may  not  be  per- 
formed by  us  and  be  rewarded  by  God,  either  in  our  own  enhanced 


150 


Works  of  Supererogation. 


recompense,  or  in  the  transfer  of  their  merits  to  those  who  need 
them.  But  the  language  is  elliptical.  It  means  that  God's  com- 
mandments  are  so  exceedingly  broad,  and  our  obedience  to  them, 
even  if  it  were  perfect,  so  devoid  of  any  "  profit "  to  him,  that  it 
is  "arrogancy  and  impiety"  to  suppose  that  we  lay  him  under 
any  obligation  by  voluntary  works,  besides,  over  and  above  God's 
commandments.  If  a  perfect  obedience  to  his  absolute  legisla- 
tion is,  in  the  sense  explained,  "unprofitable,"  a  fortiori,  no  vol- 
untary works  performed  in  compliance  with  mere  counsels  can 
have  any  merit. 

§8.  The  Two  Great  Commandments, 

No  evangelical  counsels,  or  counsels  of  perfection,  can  go  be- 
yond the  two  great  commandments  of  the  law.  Thus  Jesus  an- 
swered one  of  the  scribes:  "  The  first  of  all  the  commandments 
is,  Hear,  O  Israel;  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord:  and  thou  shalt 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul, 
and  with  all  thy  mind,  and  ^ith  all  thy  strength:  this  is  the  first 
commandment.  And  the  second  is  like,  namely  this,  Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  There  is  none  other  commandm^ent 
greater  than  these.  And  the  scribe  said  unto  him.  Well,  Mas- 
ter, thou  hast  said  the  truth:  for  there  is  one  God;  and  there  is 
none  other  but  he:  and  to  love  him  with  all  the  heart,  and  with 
all  the  understanding,  and  with  all  the  soul,  and  with  all  the 
strength,  and  to  love  his  neighbor  as  himself,  is  more  than  all 
whole  burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices.  And  when  Jesus  saw  that 
he  answered  discreetly,  he  said  unto  him.  Thou  art  not  far  from 
the  kingdom  of  God."    (Mark  xii.  29-34) 

He  answered,  indeed,  discreetly.  Surely  such  a  heap  of  epi- 
thets— such  emphasis  of  amplification — excludes  the  notion  that 
when  these  two  commandments  are  fulfilled,  there  shall  be  any 
thing  left  to  be  done  in  the  way  of  supererogation,  or  compli- 
ance with  fancied  evangelical  counsels  or  counsels  of  perfection: 
as  if  there  could  be  any  thing  more  evangelical  or  more  perfect 
than  such  obedience,  or  as  if  there  were  any  power  of  the  soul 
Ipft  to  be  employed  in  them,  or  any  portion  of  time  unemployed 
in  obeying  the  "  commandments  "so  that  it  might  be  taken  up  in 
complying  with  the  "  counsels." 

5^  9.  No  Distinction  of  Internal  and  External, 

Nor  let  it  be  said,  as  Taylor  seems  to  insinuate,  that  the  com- 


The  Roman  Doctrine  Stated. 


151 


mandments  refer, to  "internal  actions,"  "grace,  or  virtue,"  but 
that  the  counsels  refer  to  "the  external  prosecution  of  the  in- 
ward grace."  For  can  any  man  obey  the  commandments  which 
require  him  to  love  God  with  all  his  powers  and  his  neighbor 
as  himself,  without  "  the  external  prosecution  of  the  inward 
grace?"  As  by  works  faith  is  made  perfect,  so  by  works 
love  is  made  perfect,  too.  "  But  whoso  keepeth  his  word,  in  him 
verily  is  the  love  of  God  perfected."  (1  John  ii.  5.)  "If  ye 
love  me,  keep  my  commandments."  (John  xiv.  15.)  "  For  this 
is  the  love  of  God,  that  we  keep  his  commandments;  and  his 
commandments  are  not  grievous."  (1  John  v.  3.)  "  Owe  no 
man  any  thing,  but  to  love  one  another:  for  he  that  loveth  an- 
other hath  fulfilled  the  law.  For  this,  Thou  shalt  not  commit 
adultery.  Thou  shalt  not  kill,  Tlion  shalt  not  steal.  Thou  shalt 
not  bear  false  Avitness,  Thou  shalt  not  covet;  and  if  there  be  any 
other  commandment,  it  is  briefly  comprehended  in  this  saying, 
namely.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thj'self.  Love  worketli 
no  ill  to  his  neighbor:  therefore  love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law." 
(Rom.  xiii.  8-10;  cf.  James  ii.  8-12.)  It  is  very  true  that  no 
"external  works"  are  pleasing  and  acceptable  to  God,  "unless 
they  spring  from  love."  But  love  cannot  exist  in  the  heart  with- 
out development,  any  more  than  a  fire  can  continue  burning 
without  fuel  and  vent.  'But  he  who  thinks  he  can  do  something 
more  perfect  than  that  which  is  done  under  the  impulse  of  love 
to  God  and  man,  according  to  the  divine  commandment,  is  either 
arrogant  and  wipious,  or  ignorant  and  fanatical. 

§  10.  Works  of  Supererogation  Impossible. 

[Lastly,  this  teaches  that  there  cannot  possibly  be  any  works  of  supererogation. 
For,  as  law  is  love,  love  also  is  law.  There  can  be  ho  such  thing  as  overpassing 
the  limits  of  obligation.  The  spirit  of  divine  charity  seems  to  suppress  the  ter- 
minology of  ethics,  and  to  change  its  character;  but  only  to  revive  it  into  higher 
life.  The  vows  of  poverty,  chastity,  and  obedience,  so  far  as  they  are  Christian, 
are  not  in  reality  voluntary  vows,  but  obligatory  laws.  Blessed  are  the  poor  in 
spirit!  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart !  Blessed  are  they  which  do  hunger  and  thirst  after 
righteousness  f  are  benedictions  pronounced  upon  the  three  severally,  as  expressing 
the  true  Christian  character.  Every  counsel  of  perfection  is  a  commandment 
with  promise.  .  .  .  Jesus,  the  universal  Lawgiver,  is  the  one  Director  of 
souls:  "there  is  one  Lawgiver"  (Jas.  iv.  12),  who  is  God-man,  the  Lord;  and  his 
law  is  love,  whether  as  to  the  perfect  principle  that  keeps  it,  or  as  to  the  sum  of 
the  commandments  which  it  must  keep."*] 


*  Pope's  "Compendium,"  etc.,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  184,  185. 


CHAPTKR  II. 


ALLEGED  SCRIPTURAL  EXAMPLES  CONSIDERED. 

As  to  the  cases  of  evangelical  counsels,  or  counsels  of  perfec- 
tion, usually  adduced,  and  which  constitute  the  groundwork  of 
this  doctrine  concerning  works  of  supererogation,  a  few  words 
of  explanation  will  suffice. 

§  1.  The  Rich  Ruler  and  Voluntary  Poverty. 
The  first  case  is  that  of  the  counsel  to  voluntary  poverty,  giv- 
en by  our  Lord  to  the  rich  ruler,  who  said  he  had  kept  all  the 
commandments  of  the  second  table,  and  asked:  "What  lack  I 
yet?  Jesus  said  unto  him.  If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,  go  and 
sell  that  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt  have 
treasure  in  heaven;  and  come  and  follow  me."  (Matt.  xix.  20, 
21.) 

Now,  because  Christ  says,  "  If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,  go  and 
sell  that  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,"  it  is  thought  that  he 
merely  gave  him  a  "  counsel  of  i^erfection,"  which,  with  equal 
safety,  though  not  with  equal  merit,  he  might  follow  or  decline. 
But  does  not  the  sequel  show  that  it  was  not  a  counsel  which 
might  be  followed  or  not  with  impunity,  but  a  command,  the  neg- 
lect of  which  would  imperil  his  salvation?  "The  young  man 
went  away  sorrowful;  for  he  had  great  possessions  " — immova- 
ble possessions,  and  hence  the  command  to  sell.  Christ  wished 
to  bring  him  fully  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  apparently 
to  make  him  a  minister,  as  in  the  cases  mentioDed  in  Luke  ix.  57- 
62,  which  cast  light  upon  this  case.  To  do  that  work  it  was 
necessary,  under  the  circumstances,  that  he  should  be  entirely 
free  from  all  worldly  cares  and  affections,  so  that  this  was  not  a 
mere  counsel,  but  a  command,  which  was  not  only  a  test  of  char- 
acter (which  proved  too  severe  in  the  ruler's  case),  but  also  a 
prescription  of  duty  preliminary  to  the  work  to  which  he  was 
called.  Hence  the  reply  of  Peter:  "Behold  we  have  forsaken 
all,  and  followed  thee;  what  shall  we  have  therefore?"  and  the 
well-known  reply  of  our  Lord,  vs.  27-29.  But  suppose  Peter 
(152) 


Alleged  Scriptural  Examples  Considered. 


153 


and  the  other  apostles  had  not  obeyed  the  call,  "Follow  me,  and 
I  will  make  you  fishers  o£  men,"  what  would  have  been  the  re- 
sult? Would  they  have  merely  foregone  the  reward  merited  by 
compliance  with  an  "evangelical  counsel?"  Would  they  not 
rather  have  thereby  cut  them'selves  off  from  all  the  privileges 
and  promises  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  both  in  this  world  and 
in  the  next?  They  would  thereby  have  proved  themselves 
not  "fit  for  the  kingdom  of  God."  Admitting  that  up  to  that 
time  the  ruler  was  under  gracious  influence  and  in  the  way 
of  salvation,  it  is  questionable  whether  he  could  have  continued 
therein  after  declining  the  call  to  the  ministry  under  the  influ- 
ence of  undue  regard  to  his  worldly  possessions.  Cornelius  was 
in  a  state  of  acceptance  before  he  was  visited  by  Peter;  but  if 
he  had  refused  to  take  the  course  indicated  to  him  by  the  apos- 
tle, he  would  have  forfeited  his  standing  in  the  sight  of  God.  It 
is  not  sufficient  to  measure  up  to  the  old  standard  when  you  are 
called  to  a  higher  grade. 

[Upon  the  case  of  the  rich  ruler.  Pope  remarks : 

The  specific  dogma  that  the  counsels  of  perfection  test  the  character  of  believ- 
ers and  stimulate  them  to  a  higher  attainment  is  an  unscriptural  one,  so  far  as  it 
introduces  a  new  element  in  probation.  It  ■will  be  urged  that  our  Lord  himself 
applied  these  as  tests  during  his  personal  administration  of  his  kingdom.  But  it 
must  be  remembered  that  he  used  these  tests  under  special  circumstances;  that, 
strictly  speaking,  he  never  applied  but  one  of  the  counsels,  that  of  renunciation  of 
property;  and  that,  in  the  application  of  this,  he  only  laid  down  a  principle  of 
universal  importance,  with  a  specific  reference  to  the  need  of  a  particular  case. 
He  never  used  tests  of  probation  which  should  distinguish  one  class  of  his  disci- 
ples from  another  in  all  ages.  Hence  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  Eomanisra  as 
the  chief  representative  of  the  sacramentarian  system,  and  that  of  merit  resulting 
from  obedience  to  counsels,  in  two  ways  interfere  with  the  reality  of  probation: 
first,  by  taking  away  to  some  extent  the  probationary  responsibility  of  the  believer; 
and,  secondly,  by  applying  a  superfluous  and  limited  test.  Probation  is  in  Chris- 
tianity the  same  for  all  and  for  all  alike."^ 

Chastity,  poverty,  and  obedience  are  the  three-one  estate  of  perfection,  as  ex- 
emplified by  our  Lord  himself,  to  which,  it  has  been  assumed,  he  called  the  more 
elect  among  his  followers.  But  our  Lord  did  not  summon  some  men  to  a  perfec- 
tion denied  to  others,  though  he  did  summon  some  men  to  duties  not  required  in 
all  cases  of  others.  To  all  his  disciples  the  injunction  came  to  aspire  to  another 
three-one  perfection:  "If  any  man  will  come  after  me  let  him  deny  himself,  and 
take  up  his  cross  daily  and  follow  me."  (Luke  ix.  23.)  These  three  are  imposed 
on  every  Christian,  Avithout  exception. f] 

§  2.  Christian  Communism. 

The  case  of  the  primitive  Christians  who  "  sold  their  posses- 
«■  Pope,  "  Compendium,"  etc.,  Vol.  HI.,  pp.  110,  111.       f  Ibid.,  p.  C6. 


154 


Works  of  Supererogation. 


sions,"  and  for  awhile  "had  all  things  common,"  is  not  parallel  to 
the  case  of  the  ruler,  or  what  was  required  of  him,  as  it  does  not 
appear  that  there  was  any  command  of  God  or  counsel  of  the 
apostles  so  to  do.  It  seems  to  have  taken  place  under  the 
promptings  of  an  extraordinary  'impulse  of  enthusiasm,  which 
was  a  law  unto  itself.  It  was  obligatory  upon  none  at  the  time, 
as  Peter  reminded  Ananias,  and  it  was  no  precedent  for  sub- 
sequent times.  (Acts  iv.-v.)  Ignorance  and  fanaticism  have 
adduced  it  in  favor  of  the  community  of  goods,  which  is  con- 
demned in  our  Twenty-fourth  Article.  The  outward  manifesta- 
tions of  love  to  God  and  our  neighbor,  and  in  particular  "  broth- 
erly love,"  vary  greatly  in  mode  and  degree,  according  to  the 
circumstances  in  which  men  are  placed  and  the  peculiar  charac- 
ter of  each.  No  specific  commands  or  counsels  are  given,  or  can 
be  given.  Zeal  and  liberality  are  inculcated  by  the  highest  con- 
siderations and  in  the  most  imperative  manner.  But  sumptuary 
laws,  tithe  law^s,  vows  of  poverty,  and  the  like,  are  foreign  to 
the  genius  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  Make  all  you  can  by 
industry;  save  all  you  can  by  economy;  give  all  you  can  by  lib- 
erali'ty,  are  the  best  rules  we  know.  It  is  left  to  every  man's 
own  reason  and  conscience,  enlightened  and  influenced  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  to  carry  them  into  practice.  Some  lay  up  more 
treasure  in  heaven  than  others,  and  every  man  shall  receive  his 
own  reward  according  to  his  own  labor.  "  For  God  is  not  un- 
righteous to  forget  your  work  and  labor  of  love,  which  ye  have 
showed  toward  his  name,  in  that  ye  have  ministered  to  the  saints, 
and  do  minister."  (Heb.  vi.  10;  cf.  Matt.  x.  42;  xxv.  34-40;  Heb. 
xiii.  16 ;  1  John  iii.  16-18.) 

§  3.  Celibacy. 

The  next  case  adduced  is  that  of  celibacy.  It  is  supposed  that 
the  apostle  meant  it,  not  as  a  commandment,  but  as  a  "  counsel 
of  perfection,"  when  he  wrote  to  the  Corinthians:  "It  is  good  for 
a  man  not  to  touch  a  woman.  .  .  .  For  I  would  that  all  men 
were  even  as  I  myself.  But  every  man  hath  his  proper  gift  of 
God,  one  after  this  manner,  and  another  after  that.  I  say  there- 
fore to  the  unmarried  and  widows.  It  is  good  for  them  if  they 
abide  even  as  I.  ...  I  suppose,  therefore,  that  this  is  good 
for  the  present  distress;  I  say  that  it  is  good  for  a  man  so  to 
be.  .  .  .  So,  then,  he  that  giveth  her  in  marriage  doeth  well, 
but  he  that  giveth  her  not  in  marriage  doeth  better."    (1  Cor. 


AUe(jcd  Scr/ptttral  Examples  Considered  155 

vii. )  We  have  elsewhere  shown  (under  Article  Y. )  that  the  apos- 
tle does  not  speak  here  of  his  own  proper  motion,  but,  as  every- 
w^here  else,  by  inspiration,  so  that  whether  you  call  his  instruc- 
tions commands  or  counsels,  they  are  all  of  divine  authority. 
It  is  usual  to  collate  with  these  passages  Matt.  xix.  10-12,  where 
the  disciples,  demurring  to  Christ's  inhibition  of  divorce,  except 
for  one  cause,  say  to  him:  "  If  the  case  of  a  man  be  so  with  his 
wife,  it  is  not  good  to  marry.  But  he  said  unto  them.  All  men 
cannot  receive  this  saying,  save  they  to  whom  it  is  given.  For 
there  are  some  eunuchs  which  were  so  born  from  their  mother's 
womb;  and  there  are  some  eunuchs  which  were  made  eunuchs 
of  men;  and  there  be  eunuchs  which  have  made  themselves  eu- 
nuchs for  the  kingdom  of  heaven's  sake.  He  that  is  able  to  re- 
ceive it,  let  him  receive  it." 

The  sum  of  all  this  is  that  marriage  and  celibacy  are  alike 
good,  according  to  circumstances  and  particular  persons.  For 
some,  as  the  apostle  says,  it  is  better  to  marry,  and  marriage  is 
honorable  in  all  who  properly  enter  that  state,  and  the  bed  un- 
defiled.  For  others  it  is  better  to  remain  unmarried,  namely, 
those  who  have  the  gift  of  continence  and  have  special  evangelis- 
tic duties  to  perform,  which  can  be  j^erformed  better  by  celibates 
than  by  married  persons — especially  in  times  of  distress.  By 
"  the  present  distress,"  it  is  generally  held  that  the  apostle  means 
the  times  of  persecution  through  which  the  primitive  Christians 
were  passing,  though  Bishop  Browne  and  some  others  think  he 
means  the  ordinary  troubles  and  afflictions  of  life.  But  surely 
it  can  hardly  be  said  that  celibacy  is,  in  itself,  a  more  desirable 
state  than  matrimony,  in  which  are  founcl,  it  may  be,  greater 
cares,  but  also  far  greater  solaces  and  joys.  Celibacy  is  usually 
spoken  of  in  the  Scriptures  as  a  far  inferior  state  to  matrimony; 
and  therefore  it  seems  clear  that  both  our  Lord  and  his  apostles 
commend  it  in  the  cases  specified  simply  for  the  reasons  w^e  have 
assigned.  But,  in  every  case,  the  adoption  of  this  state  of  life  is 
left  to  the  judgment  and  conscience  of  every  one,  enlightened 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  indications  of  divine  providence. 

§  4.  Paul  and  Ministerial  Compensation. 

The  fourth  case  adduced  is  that  of  Paul  in  1  Cor.  ix.  15,  where 
the  apostle  says  that  he  had  a  right  to  claim  compensation  from 
the  Corinthians  for  his  ministerial  services.    "But,"  says  he,  "  I 


156 


Works  of  Supererogation. 


have  used  none  of  these  things;  neither  have  I  written  these 
things,  that  it  should  be  so  done  unto  me;  for  it  were  better  for 
me  to  die,  than  that  any  man  should  make  my  glorying  void."  It 
is  strange  that  any  one  should  stumble  at  this  passage  or  misun- 
derstand its  drift.  The  apostle  simply  means  that  while  he  had 
a  right  to  receive  pay  for  his  services,  he  relinquished  it,  in  this 
particular  case  (though  not  in  others),  because  his  enemies  were 
ready  to  charge  him  with  sinister  motives  in  preaching  the  gos- 
pel. This  was  agreeable  to  his  usual  course,  to  make  himself 
all  things  to  all  men,  that  he  might  by  all  means  save  some. 
"  For,"  says  he,  though  I  be  free  from  all  men,  yet  have  I  made 
myself  servant  unto  all,  that  I  might  gain  the  more."  (1  Cor. 
ix.  19,  20.) 

It  is  not  denied  that  the  apostle  would  receive  a  reward  for 
his  disinterestedness;  but  he  says  nothing  of  that  in  this  pas- 
sage, w^hich  the  Vulgate  incorrectly  renders,  qiiam  itf  f/Ioriam 
meam  qiiis  eracueL  St.  Augustin,  who  knew  but  little  Greek,  and 
who  used  the  Latin  version,  says,  Quam  gloriam?  nisi  quam  hab- 
ere voluit  apud  Deum  in  Christo.  "What  glory?  if  not  that  which 
he  wished  to  have  before  God  in  Christ."  Bellarmin  argues 
from  this  that  Paul  would  not  take  pay  for  his  preaching  to  the 
Corinthians,  in  order  that  he  might  have  greater  glory  for  so 
doing.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  this  might  be  the  case.  A 
man  may  forego  earthly  advantages  to  gain  a  greater  heavenly 
reward.  But  Paul  does  not  here  use  the  word  o<y^a,  glory,  but 
y.aoyrjrxa,  boasting.  Ho  does  not  refer  to  any  glory  which  he 
looked  for  in  heaven,  but  to  the  laudable  boasting  to  which  he 
was  entitled  for  his  disinterestedness  in  serving  the  Corinthians 
without  pay.  It  is  strange  that  such  a  passage  as  this  should 
be  pressed  into  the  service  of  the  merit  of  condignity  and  works 
of  supererogation. 

§  5.  Degrees  in  Excellency. 

If  it  be  asked  how  those  will  fare  who  do  not  always  choose 
"the  things  that  are  excellent,"  who  do  not  perform  all  the  serv- 
ices, and  make  all  the  sacrifices  which  they  might  do,  to  the 
greater  glory  of  God  and  the  good  of  man,  we  may  simply  reply 
that  this  question,  however  pertinent  in  other  connections,  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  present  discussion.  If  those  who  fulfill 
their  whole  duty  in  every  particular,  and  who  may  expect  a  full 
reward,  an  entrance  ministered  unto  them  abundantly  into  the 


Alleged  Scriptural  Examples  Considered, 


157 


everlasting  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  are 
still  unprofitable  servants  of  the  great  Master,  so  that  they  may 
not  glory,  or  boast,  in  the  presence  of  God  (1  Cor.  i.  29),  those 
who  do  not  thus  excel  in  piety  and  virtue  have  little  reason  to 
speak  of  merit  as  for  themselves,  to  say  nothing  of  an  overplus 
which  they  might  transfer  to  others  !  (See  Wesley's  sermon  on 
"  The  More  Excellent  Way.")  The  relation  which  works  of  su- 
pererogation bear  to  the  popish  notions  of  purgator}^  pardons, 
and  the  like  will  be  seen  in  the  discussion  of  the  Fourteenth 
Article. 

§  6.  Mohler's  Doctrine  Reviewed. 

[Perhaps  the  ablest  and  most  learned  of  modern  Eoman  Cath- 
olic divines  is  the  deservedly  eminent  German  theologian,  Mbh- 
ler,  whose  statement  of  what  he  himself  calls  the  "remarkable 
doctrine  "  of  supererogation  is  thus  quoted  by  Pope  : 

Some  men  of  late  have  defended  the  old  orthodox  Lutheran  doctrine,  by  as- 
surino:  iis  that  the  moral  law  proposes  to  men  an  ideal  standard,  which,  like  every 
thin?  ideal,  necessarily  continues  unattained.  If  such  really  be  the  case  with  the 
moral  law,  then  he  who  comes  not  up  to  its  requirements  can  as  little  incur  re- 
sponsibility as  an  epic  poet  for  not  equaling  the  Iliad.  ]\Iore  rational,  at  least,  is 
the  theory  that  the  higher  a  believer  stantls  in  the  scale  of  morality  the  more  ex- 
alted are  the  claims  of  the  moral  law  upon  liim:  so  that  they  increase,  as  it  were, 
to  infinity  with  the  internal  growth  of  man,  and  leave  him  .ever  behind  them. 
Now,  when  we  contemplate  the  lives  of  the  saints  the  opposite  phenomena  strike 
our  attention.  The  consciousness  of  being  in  the  possession  of  an  all-sufficing,  in- 
finite power  discloses  more  and  more  the  tenderer  and  nobler  relations  of  man  to 
God  and  to  his  fellow-creatures;  so  that  the  sanctified  in  Christ,  filled  with  his 
Spirit,  ever  feels  himself  superior  to  the  law.  It  is  the  nature  of  heaven-born  love, 
which  stands  so  infinitely  far  above  tlie  claims  of  the  mere  law,  never  to  be  content 
with  its  own  doings,  and  ever  to  be  more  ingenious  in  its  own  devices;  so  that 
Christians  of  this  stamp  not  unfrequently  seem  to  others  of  a  lower  grade  of  per- 
fection to  be  enthusiasts,  or  men  of  distempered  mind.  Only  in  this  way  that  re- 
markable doctrine  can  be  satisAictorily  explained — which,  like  every  other  that 
has  for  ages  existed  and  seriously  engaged  the  human  mind,  is  sure  to  rest  on  some 
sure  foimdation — the  doctrine,  namely,  that  there  can  be  works  which  are  more 
than  suflficient  {opera  supererogationis),  the  tendency  and  delicacy  of  which  eluded 
the  perception  of  the  Reformers. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  even  in  this  attempted  philosophy  of 
"works  more  than  sufficient,"  in  which  scriptural  proofs  are  con- 
spicuously absent,  though  probably  cited  elsewhere,  Mohler  con- 
cedes a  point  of  view  which  is  fatal  to  his  position,  namely,  that 
the  claims  of  the  moral  law  may  increase,  with  the  believer's 


158 


Works  of  Supererogation. 


spiritual  growth,  to  infinity,  leaving  the  most  exalted  saint  ever 
behind  them.    But  let  us  hear  Dr.  Pope's  refutation: 

If  tiiis  doctrine  meant  only  that  love  in  the  regenerate  soul  asi)ires  to  a  per- 
fection which  cannot  be  measured  by  the  standard  of  any  positive  precei)ts  it 
would  be  unimpeachable:  so  stated,  it  would  be  only  another  form  of  the  Lutheran 
and  Calvinistic  assertion  that  the  external  law  is  abrogated  in  Christ,  being  ex- 
changed for  the  internal  law,  by  which  believers  may  render  obedience  in  a  higher 
and  nobler  spirit.  All  that  is  noble  in  the  theory  of  supererogatory  works  is  niaiu- 
tained  by  all  sound  Protestants;  but  they  make  it  consistent  with  the  evangelical 
covenant  by  declaring  that  no  such  works  can  be  above  the  requirements  of  the 
law  interpreted  by  love;  that  even  these  are  accepted  as  wrought  by  the  believer, 
because  their,  imperfection  is  constantly  forgiven  for  the  sake  of  the  atonement, 
and  that  their  absolute  merit  is  utterly  excluded  by  our  Lord  when  he  bids  such 
as  are  supposed  to  have  performed  them  call  themselves  unprofitable  servants,  who 
have  done  only  that  which  it  was  their  duty  to  do.  The  attempt  to  separate  be- 
tween law  and  love  is  a  hopeless  one:  love  is  said  to  be  the  fulhlling  of  the  law, 
and  in  maintaining  that  everlasting  principle  against  their  opponents  the  Roman- 
ist divines  had  scripture  on  their  side;  but  in  establishing  it  as  a  higher  standard 
than  the  moral  law  which  it  only  interprets,  and  in  linking  it  with  special  and 
arbitrary  counsels  which  are  made  into  statutory  laws  binding  on  a  particular 
class,  and,  above  all,  in  assigning  specific  merit — the  merit  of  satisfaction — to  the 
acts  of  this  estate  of  perfection,  they  are  contradicted  by  the  spirit  and  the  letter 
of  the  entire  New  Testament.*  ] 


*  Pope,  "•  Compendium,"  etc.,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  81,  82. 


PART  VI. 


ARTICLE  XII. 

Of  Sin  After  Justification. 

Not  every  sin  icillincjly  committed  after  justification  is  the  sin 
against  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  iinpardonaUe.  Wherefore,  the  grant 
of  repentance  is  not  to  be  denied  to  such  as  fall  into  sin  after  justi- 
fication: after  we  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  ire  may  depart  from 
grace  gicen,  and  fall  into  sin,  and,  by  the  grace  of  God,  rise  again 
and  amend  our  lives.  And  therefore  they  are  to  be  condemned  who 
say  they  can  no  more  sin  as  long  as  they  live  here,  or  deny  the  place 
of  forgiveness  to  such  as  tridy  repent. 


Introduction. 

Tills  article  was  taken  substantially  from  the  Twelfth  Article 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  "  Of  Repentance,"  the  latter  part 
of  which  reads  thus: 

They  condemn  the  doctrine  of  such  as  deny  [in  the  Latin  recension,  Damnant 
Anabaptistasl  that  those* who  have  been  justified  may  lose  the  Holy  Spirit.  In 
like  manner  those  who  contend  that  some  persons  attain  so  high  a  degree  of  per- 
fection in  this  life,  that  they  cannot  sin.  They  reject  also  those  [in  the  Latin, 
Damnaniur  et  Novatiani]  avIio  are  unwilling  to  absolve  such  as  have  backslidden 
after  baptism,  even  if  they  repent;  as  also  those  who  teach  that  remission  of  sins 
is  not  obtained  through  faith,  but  require  us  to  merit  grace  by  onr  good  works. 

This  article  is  nearly  the  same  as  the  Fifteenth  Article  of  the 
Confession  of  1552,  in  which  the  Sixteenth  Article  developed 
the  subject,  treating  expressly  of  blasphemy  against  the  Holy 
Ghost.  It  is  the  Sixteenth  Article  of  the  present  Anglican  Con- 
fession. It  has  been  subjected  to  some  verbal  changes.  Burnet 
informs  us  that  in  the  MS.  original,  signed  by  both  Houses  of 
Convocation,  and  preserved  in  Corpus  Christi  College,  Cam- 
bridge, the  reading  is,  "the  place  for  penitence,"  instead  of  "the 
grant  of  repentance."  Burnet,  in  the  New  York  edition,  has  "  the 
sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,"  as  ours;  but  the  word  "the"  be- 

(159) 


160 


Sm  After  Justification. 


fore  sin  is  omitted  in  all  the  other  editions  of  the  Articles  which 
we  have  seen.  In  some  old  editions  the  words  "we  may,"  be- 
fore the  word  "arise,"  are  put  in  parentheses.  Wesley  has 
simply  "  rise  again."    He  has  also  "  who  say  "  for  "  which  say." 

But  our  article  has  another  change  more  suggestive,  and  an 
omission  more  important. 

Instead  of  saying  in  the  title,  "Of  Sin  after  Baptism,"  our 
Article  says,  "Of  Sin  after  Justification;"  and  it  omits  the  word 
"deadly"  before  "  sin." 

[These  judicious  changes  of  Mr.  Wesley's  will  be  immediately 
explained  and  justified  at  length.] 


CHAPTKR  I. 


MR.WESLEY'S  CHANGES  EXPLAINED  AND  JUSTIFIED. 
§1.  The  Substitution  of  Justification  for  Baptism. 

The  Eeformers  used  tiie  word  baptism  because  they  held, 
however  inconsistently,  to  the  patristic  notion  of  baptismal  jus- 
tification and  regeneration.  The  Fathers  taught  that  all  sins, 
original  and  actual,  were  remitted  in  baptism.  It  is  easy  to  ac- 
count for  this  opinion.  When  the  gospel  Avas  first  preached,  and 
Jews  or  Gentiles  embraced  the  message  of  salvation  through 
Jesus  as  the  promised  Messiah,  they  were  baptized  for  the  re- 
mission of  their  sins,  baptism  being  the  exponent  of  their  faith, 
and  the  rite  by  which  they  confessed  the  same.  It  was  natural, 
therefore,  to  attribute  to  baptism  the  virtue  which  belonged  to 
the  faith  of  Avliich  it  was  the  exponent  and  the  grace  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  which  it  was  the  symbol  and  pledge — not  to  say, 
that  in  some  cases,  the  outward  rite  assisted  in  the  exercise  of 
faith,  and  so  was  a  means  whereby  the  grace  signified  was  real- 
ized. 

But  as  afterward  the  subjects  of  baptism  were  mostly  chil- 
dren, who  are  incapable  of  faith,  and  of  whom  justification  can- 
not be  predicated,  as  they  are  not  actually  transgressors,  and  so 
have  no  personal  sins  to  be  forgiven,  it  is  misleading  to  identify 
justification  with  baptism.  It  is  only  in  very  rare  cases,  as  we 
showed  in  discussing  the  Ninth  Article,  on  Justification,  that 
the  baptism  of  an  adult  and  his  initial  exercise  of  justifying 
faith,  are  synchronous.  Mr.  Wesley,  therefore,  did  well  to  sub- 
stitute "justification"  for  "baptism"  in  the  title  and  in  the 
body  of  this  article.  Many  would  have  misgivings  in  subscrib- 
ing the  article  in  its  original  form;  but  none  can  hesitate  in 
subscribing  it  as  we  have  it. 

§  2.  The  Romish  Distinction  Between  Mortal  and  Venial 

Sins. 

The  same  may  be  said  in  regard  to  the  omission  of  the  word 
"  deadly  "  before  "  sin."    The  Reformers  might  not  have  had  in 
11  Vol.  II.  161) 


162 


Sin  After  Justification. 


view  the  Eomish  distinction  between  deadly  sins  and  venial 
sins;  but  the  use  of  the  word  ''deadly  "—in  the  Latin  recension 
mortfde — seems  to  look  that  way. 

Eomanists  hold  that  there  are  seven  sins  which  are  so  heinous 
that  they  are  called  deadly,  or  mortal  sins,  namely:  murder,  lust, 
covetousness,  gluttony,  pride,  envy,  and  idleness.  Any  one  ot* 
these  sins,  it  is  said,  forfeits  the  grace  of  God,  because  it  is  in 
its  nature  gross,  and  is  committed  knowingly,  willfully,  and  de- 
liberately. On  the  contrary,  venial  sins,  that  is,  sins  which  are 
pardonable,  are  small  in  their  nature,  and  are  committed  through 
ignorance  or  negligence.  Holy  persons,  they  say,  fall  daily  into 
these  sins,  which  do  not  exclude  the  transgressor  from  the  grace 
of  God;  and  Bellarmin  says  no  amount  of  veniaj  sins  can  make 
a  mortal  sin.  Mortal  and  venial  sins,  therefore,  according  to 
Roman  casuists,  differ  not  only  in  enormity,  but  also  in  nature. 

This  distinction  is  not  only  absurd  and  unscriptural,  but  is 
very  mischievous.  Apply  our  Lord's  test  in  regard  to  the  first 
three  of  the  so-called  mortal  sins,  and  see  if  he  does  not  com- 
prehend under  murder,  lust,  and  covetousness  a  multitude  cf 
sins  which  Eomish  casuists  w^ould  call  venial.  The  most  subtle 
casuist  has  never  been  able  to  draw  the  line  of  demarkation  be- 
tween so-called  mortal  and  venial  sins. 

But  it  is  said  the  word  "  deadly  "  was  used  by  the  Reformers  in 
this  place  as  in  the  Litany:  "From  fornication,  and  all  ether 
deadly  sins,"  to  denote,  as  Burnet  says,  ^'  those  sins  only  that 
do  deeply  wound  the  conscience,  and  that  drive  away  grace," 
whereas,  he  says,  "  we  acknowledge  that  some  sins  of  ignorance 
and  infirmity  may  consist  with  a  state  of  grace."  The  difi'erence 
between  this  view  and  that  of  the  Eomanists  will  appear  to  com- 
mon people  as  about  the  same  as  the  difi'erence  between  tireedle- 
diim  and  tweedledee!  The  truth  is,  every  sin  is  in  its  nature 
deadly,  and  every  sin  upon  repentance  is  venial;  so  the  distinc- 
tion is  without  a  difference.  Hence  Mr.  Wesley  did  well  to  omit 
the  ambiguous  word.  As  was  said  in  the  former  case,  so  we  say 
in  this:  Many  would  have  misgivings  in  subscribing  the  article 
in  its  original  form,  but  none  can  hesitate  in  subscribing  it  as 
we  have  it.  A  fortiori,  if  "  deadly  "  sins  are  pardonable,  all 
other  sins  may  be  forgiven. 

§3.  The  Sin  Against  the  Holy  Ghost. 

There  is,  however,  a  qualification  which  must  be  noted:  "Not 


Mr,  Wesley's  Changes  Explained  and  Justified.  163 


every  sin  unU ingly  GommiiiQ^  after  justification  is  the  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  unpardonable."  In  one  sense  all  sinful 
acts  are  willingly  performed;  it  is  indeed  the  ivill  which  makes 
the  sin.  But  in  this  place  "  willingly  " — in  the  Latin  voluntarie 
—means"  willfully,"  as  iy.ooffUo^i^  rendered  in  Heb.  x.  26;  in  the 
Vulgate,  voluntarie:  "If  we  sin  willfully  after  that  we  have  re- 
ceived the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sac- 
rifice for  sin."  Wiclif  and  Cranmer  both  render  "  Avillf ully,"  but 
Tyndale,  Geneva,  Eheims,  and  L.  Tomson  (1599)  all  have  "  will- 
ingly," as  the  same  Avord  is  rendered  in  our  version  of  1  Peter 
V.  2,  where  it  is  used  in  a  good  sense,  as  in  Heb.  x.  26  it  is  used 
in  a  bad  sense.  The  note  in  Tomson's  "  Beza  "  is:  "  Without  any 
cause  or  occasion,  or  show  of  occasion." 

The  schoolmen  speak  of  sins  of  infirmity — these  are  against 
the  Father  especially,  as  his  peculiar  personal  attribute  is  power; 
sins  of.  ignorance,  especially  against  the  Son,  whose  peculiar 
attribute  is  wisdom;  and  sins  of  presumption,  especially  against 
the  Spirit,  whose  peculiar  attribute  is  love.  In  this  last  class 
are  placed  willful  sins.  But  not  all  of  these  are  such  sins  against 
the  Holy  Ghost  as  are  unpardonable.' 

That  which  is  considered  by  emifaence  the  sin  against  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  that  which  is  called  in  the  Gospels  "  the  blas- 
phemy against  the  Holy  Spirit,"  which  we  learn  from  Mark 
iii.  22-30,  consisted  in  attributing  the  miracles  which  Jesus 
wrought  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  Beelzebub,  the 
prince  of  the  devils.  Some  say  "  the  scribes  "  did  not  commit 
this  sin,  but  were  in  danger  of  doing  so,  hence  Christ  warned 
them  of  the  consequences,  to  keep  them  from  it.  They  say  that 
that  sin  could  not  be  committed,  because  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
not  yet  given.  How  strange  that  they  should  overlook  the  fact 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  came  upon  Christ  in  his  baptism,  and  re- 
mained during  the  whole  course  of  his  ministry,  and  that  by  his 
power  Christ  i:)erformed  the  miracles  which  authenticated  his 
mission.  The  scribes  did  say  that  Christ  wrought  his  miracles 
by  the  x)ower  of  the  devil;  and  Mark  says  that  he  uttered  the 
fearful  sentence  concerning  the  unpardonable  sin,  "  Because  they 
said.  He  hath  an  unclean  spirit."  This  blasphemy  therefore 
does  not  consist  in  final  impenitence,  for  every  sin  unrepented 
of  is  unpardonable,  but  it  consists  of  blasphemy  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,  that  is,  such  detraction  as  has  the  Holy  Spirit 


164 


Sin  After  Justification. 


for  its  object — not  speaking  against  the  divinity  or  dignity  of 
his  person,  or  of  his  ordinary  operations,  but  against  the  high- 
est and  most  important  and  most  obvious  manifestations  of  his 
econominal  functions,  by  which  the  divine  legation  of  Jesus  was 
authenticated,  and  the  divine  original  of  Christianity  ratified. 
This  argued  a  malignity  so  deep  and  damning  that  repentance 
and  pardon  were  out  of  the  question.  It  could  not  be  reason- 
ably expected  that  those  who  had  arrived  at  such  a  pitch  of  de- 
pravity as  to  sin  so  malignantly  and  so  presumptuously  would  in 
the  future  do  what  they  had  failed  to  do  in  the  past — yield  to 
those  influences  by  which  men  are  brought  to  repentance  and 
pardon.  So  it  is  said  of  those  who  are  long  accustomed  to  sin, 
it  is  impossible  for  them  to  reform  their  lives.  "  Can  the  Ethio- 
pian change  his  skin,  or  the  leopard  his  spots?  then  may  ye  also 
do  good,  that  are  accustomed  to  do  evil."  ( Jer.  xiii.  23.)  Yet 
the  impossibility,  in  the  case  of  the  habitual  sinner,  is  not  a 
proper,  philosophical  impossibility,  as  in  that  of  the  Ethiopian 
or  leopard.  Habitual  sinners — those  who  have  grown  old  in 
crime — may  repent;  though,  generally  speaking,  they  never  do, 
and  it  is  morally  impossible  that  they  should.  The  apostasy 
spoken  of  (Heb.  vi.  4-6;  x.  26-30)  does  not  appear  to  be  iden- 
tical with  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  though  it  bears 
an  affinity  to  it.  That  apostasy  consists  in  a  deliberate  rejection 
of  Christianity,  after  having  experienced  its  saving  power.  It  is 
not  likely  that  such  men  will  be  induced  to  give  up  their  malig- 
nant ojjposition  to  Christianity ;  yet  it  is  perhaps  going  too  far  to 
say  that  this  is  absolutely  and  philosophically  impossible. 

Bishop  Burnet,  however,  says  of  the  blasphemy  of  the  scribes, 
with  great  show  of  reason: 

Tliis  is  an  impious  rejection  of  the  liigliest  method  that  God  himself  uses  for 
provinpj  a  thing  to  us.  The  scorn  put  upon  it,  as  it  flows  from  a  nature  so  de- 
praved that  it  cannot  be  wrouglit  on,  so  it  is  a  sin  not  to  be  pardoned.  All 
things  of  extreme  severity  in  a  doctrine  that  is  so  full  of  grace  and  mercy  as  the 
gospel  is  ought  to  be  restrained  as  much  as  may  be.  From  thence  we  infer  that 
those  dreadful  words  of  our  Saviour's  ought  to  be  restrained  to  the  subject  to  which, 
they  are  applied,  and  ought  not  to  be  carried  further.  Since  miracles  have  ceased 
no  man  is  any  more  capable  of  this  sin. 


CHAPTKR  II. 


NOVATIANISM. 

The  article  is  leveled  first  against  Novatianism. 

§  1.  Historical. 

The  Novatians  were  the  followers  of  Novatian  in  the  third 
century.  He  was  a  presbyter  at  Kome,  and  caused  himself  to  be 
consecrated  by  three  Bishops  of  Italy,  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  the 
rival  of  Cornelius,  who  had  been  already  consecrated  Bishop  of 
that  see.  Novatian  thought  that  Cornelius  was  too  lenient 
toward  the  lapsed,  or  those  who  apostatized  in  time  of  persecu- 
tion and  sought  reconciliation  to  the  Church.  The  claims  of 
the  two  rivals  were  submitted  to  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage, 
who  declared  in  favor  of  Cornelius;  thereupon  Novatian  formed 
a  new  sect,  called  Catliari,  or  Puritans.  They  afPected  superior 
sanctity,  and  refused  to  re-admit  apostates  to  the  Church,  and 
even  denied  that  God  could  pardon  them.  They  were  excom- 
municated by  a  Council  at  Rome,  and  the  First  Council  of  An- 
tioch  was  summoned  against  them.  Nevertheless,  they  spread 
all  over  the  Western  Church  and  over  large  portions  of  the  East- 
ern Church — Alexandria,  Constantinople,  and  several  provinces 
of  Asia,  particularly  Phrygia  and  Paphlagonia.  They  were  per- 
secuted by  Constantine,  who  interdicted  their  assembling  for 
worship,  confiscated  their  churches,  and  banished  their  leaders. 
They  subsequently  relaxed  somewhat  their  rigorous  discipline, 
and  by  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  were  reduced  to  an  in- 
considerable party. 

§  2.  Critical  Examination  of  Heb.  vi.  4-6. 

They  grounded  their  views  principally  upon  a  misinterpreta- 
tion of  Heb.  vi.  4-6  and  Heb.  x.  26-31.  In  Heb.  vi.  the  apostle 
says,  as  in  our  Authorized  Version:  "For  it  is  impossible  for 
those  who  were  once  enlightened,  and  have  tasted  of  the  heav- 
enly gift,  and  were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  have 
tasted  the  good  word  of  God,  and  the  powers  of  the  world  to 

(165) 


166 


Sin  After  Justification. 


«ome,  if  they  shall  fall  away,  to  renew  them  again  unto  repent- 
ance, seeing  they  crucify  to  themselves  the  Son  of  God  afresh, 
and  put  him  to  an  open  shame." 

This  passage  would  not  have  been  so  variously  interpreted 
and  so  grossly  perverted  if  the  scope  and  design  of  the  author 
and  the  context  had  been  duly  regarded.  TJie  epistle  is  direct- 
ed to  Christian  Jews,  and  is  a  logical  dissuasion  from  apostasy, 
into  which  some  of  their  brethren  had  fallen,  and  of  which  they 
were  in  danger.  The  great  argument  which  the  writer  uses,  and 
principally  enforces,  is  the  vast  superiority  of  the  Christian  to 
the  Jewish  dispensation,  its  Author  being  superior  to  angels,  by 
whose  agency  the  Jewish  dispensation  was  given,  and  to  Moses, 
its  mediator,  and  to  the  Levitical  priests,  who  were  its  ministers. 
On  tliis  last  point,  he  was  about  to  show  that  the  i:)riesthood  of 
Jesus  had  for  its  type  the  royal  priesthood  of  Melchizedec;  but 
at  this  point  (Chap.  v.  11)  he  goes  off,  according  to  his  manner, 
into  a  parenthesis,  or  episode,  in  which  he  rei:>roves  them  for 
their  dullness,  but  expresses  a  good  hope  concerning  them,  inas- 
much as  they  still  continued  faithful,  while  others  had  aposta- 
tized. He  was  thus  encouraged  to  give  them  further  instruction 
in  the  doctrine  of  Christ  to  carry  them  forward  to  perfection, 
while  it  was  impossible  to  do  any  thing  more  for  those  who  had 
totally  renounced  the  Christian  faith.  This  episode  continues 
from  Chap.  v.  11  to  Chap.  vi.  20,  when  the  mention  of  Melchiz- 
edec brings  him  back  to  the  subject  from  which  he  had  di- 
gressed. 

As  if  he  had  said,  "Dull  as  you  are — mere  children  in  knowl- 
edge, when  you  ought  to  be  men — yet  we  will  bear  with  you 
and  give  you  further  instruction,  provided  you  do  not  apostatize, 
like  some  of  your  brethren,  to  whom  we  can  be  of  no  further 
service:  for  as  to  those  who  were  enlightened  with  the  truth  of 
the  gospel,  and  wdio  experienced  the  heavenly  blessing  of  divine 
grace,  and  were  made  partakers  of  the  spiritual  gifts  imparted 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  who  realized  the  exceeding  great  and 
precious  promises  which  God  has  spoken,  and  the  miraculous 
influences  Avhich  attended  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  yet 
fell  away,  it  is  impossible  to  place  them  where  they  were  when 
by  repentance  they  were  constituted  disciples  of  Christ,  seeing, 
as  far  as  they  are  concerned,  they  virtually  crucify  the  Son  of 
God  and  stigmatize  him  as  an  imposter.    AYe  can  bestow  no 


Novatianism. 


167 


more  labor  on  tliem,  because  they  are  like  land  Avhicli  has  been 
thoroughly  cultivated,  and  yet  produces  nothing  but  thorns  and 
briers,  which  are  of  course  rejected  by  the  husbandman  as  ut- 
terly worthless.  He  puts  no  j^low,  he  casts  no  seed,  into  such 
soil.  But  you,  beloved,  are  not  of  this  class.  Though  you  have 
not  made  as  much  improvement  as  you  ought  to  have  done  and 
as  we  expected  from  you,  yet  your  attachment  to  Christ  and  his 
saints  encourages  us  to  labor  for  your  improvement  and  salva- 
tion; so  be  not  slothful,  but  followers  of  them  who  through 
faith  and  patience  inherit  the  promises — especially  Abraham; 
hold  fast  to  the  Christian  hope  (while  others  let  it  go),  as  it  is 
a  sure  anchor  cast  within  the  vail,  whither  the  forerunner  is  for 
us  entered,  even  Jesus  made  a  High-priest  forever,  after  the 
order  of  Melchizedec." 

He  then  goes  on  to  expatiate  upon  the  royal  and  unchangeable 
priesthood  of  Christ,  as  the  great  Antitype  of  Melchizedec. 

In  this  simple  view  of  the  subject  it  is  clear  that  the  passage 
has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  question  concerning  the  re- 
ception or  rejection  of  repentant  apostates.  That  a  change 
might  take  place  in  them  under  the  iniluence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  neither  affirmed  nor  denied;  the  scope  of  fhe  argument  has 
nothing  to  do  with  that.  If  they  came  to  a  better  mind,  which 
was  very  improbable — though  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
impossible — and  applied  to  the  apostle  for  further  instruction, 
we  may  be  sure  he  w^ould  not  have  refused  to  impart  it,  nor 
would  the  apostolic  Church  have  refused  to  restore  them  to  its 
communion.  Jeremiah  said  to  the  stubborn  Jews  of  his  time: 
"Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin,  or  the  leopard  his  spots? 
then  may  ye  also  do  good,  that  are  accustomed  to  do  evil."  He 
illustrates  a  moral  by  a  natural  impossibility.  Yet  the  prophet 
did  ,not  wholly  despair  of  their  coming  to  a  better  mind,  as  ap- 
pears from  his  reproofs,  warnings,  threatenings,  aud  promises. 
( Jer.  xiii.)  So  Christ  said,  "  It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go 
through  the  eye  of  a  needle,  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God."  And  the  disciples  were  astonished  out 
of  measure,  saying  among  themselves,  "  Who  then  can  be  saved?  " 
And  Jesus  looking  upon  them,  saith,  "  With  men  it  is  impossible, 
but  not  with  God;  for  with  God  all  things  are  possible."  He 
means,  of  course,  all  things  not  inconsistent  with  the  perfections 
of  God  or  the  moral  agency  of  man.    As  it  regards  mere  human 


168 


Sin  After  Justification. 


power,  salvation  is  impossible — really  so  with  the  case  of  every 
man,, emphatically  so  in  the  case  of  the  rich  man;  but  tJje  grace 
of  God  will  enable  him  to  overcome  the  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  his  salvation;  it  can  enable  him  to  consecrate  his  wealth, 
though  retaining  the  possession  of  his  estate,  to  the  glory  of 
God,  so  that  instead  of  hindering  it  shall  x^romote  his  salvation. 
These  cases  illustrate  the  point  in  hand. 

§3.  Critical  Examination  of  Heb.  x.  26-31. 

The  other  passage,  Heb!  x.  26-31,  reads  thus:  "  For  if  we  sin 
willfully,  after  that  we  have  received  the  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins,  but  a  certain  fearful 
looking  for  of  judgment  and  fiery  indignation,  which  shall  de- 
vour the  adversaries.  He  that  despised  Moses's  law  died  without 
mercy,  under  two  or  three  witnesses.  Of  how  much  surer  pun- 
ishment suppose  ye,  shall  he  be  thought  worthy,  who  hath  trod- 
den under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted  the  blood  of 
the  covenant  wherewith  he  was  sanctified,  an  unholy  thing,  and 
hath  done  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of  grace?  For  we  know  him 
that  hath  said,  Vengeance  belongeth  unto  me,  I  Avill  recompense, 
saith  the  Lord;  and  again,  The  Lord  will  judge  his  people.  It 
is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God." 

This  is  an  appalling  passage.  It  is  of  the  same  general  im- 
port as  that  in  Heb.  vi. ;  but  still  there  is  a  difference.  The  sin 
in  question  is  the  same — apostasy.  Those  who  committed  it  had 
received  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  corresponding  to  those 
"  who  were  once  enlightened  "  in  Heb.  vi. ;  and  they  had  been 
sanctified  by  the  blood  of  the  covenant — that  is,  the  blood  of 
Christ,  which  ratified  the  new  and  everlasting  covenant.  (Cf. 
Heb.  xiii.  20;  ix.  13-22;  x.  14-22.  )  Their  sin  was  not  one  of  igno- 
rance, for  they  had  received  the  knowledge  of  the  truth;  nor  was 
it  one  of  infirmity,  because  they  had  been  sanctified  by  the  blood 
of  Christ  applied  to  their  hearts  by  the  Spirit  of  grace;  but  it 
was  willful — that  is,  presumptuous — alluding  perhaps  to  Num. 
XV.  30, 31;  Deut.  xiii.  Stuart  says:  E/.o'jndoq  means,  then,  delib- 
erately, with  forethought,  with  settled  intention  or  design,  and 
not  by  merely  sadden  and  violent  impulse  or  by  oversight."  The 
sin  was  not  only  presumptuous,  but  it  was  a  total  revolt  from 
Christianity;  it  tore  up.  the  very  foundations;  it  degraded  the 
Author  of  Christianity  to  the  level  of  a  base  impostor,  and  in- 


Novatianism. 


169 


suited  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whom  this  gracious  economy  of  sal- 
vation is  administered,  as  if  he  were  a  party  to  a  grand  im- 
posture! If  this  is  not  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
it  is  near  akin  to  it.  Those  who  thus  apostatize  from  Chris- 
tianity surely  cannot  be  saved  by  it;  and  as  there  is  no  other 
way  of  salvation  (Acts  iv.  12;  Mark  xvi.  16;  Heb.  ii.  1-4),  no 
other  sacrifice  for  sin,  but  that  which  Christianity  sets  forth, 
their  damnation  is  sure.  Whatever  might  be  the  fate  of  those 
who  never  knew  the  way  of  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  very 
certain  that  none  who  have  known  it  and  yet  deliberately  reject 
it  can  possibly  be  saved.  This  does  not,  however,  argue  that 
while  they  are  still  on  the  earth  they  may  not  return  to  the 
faith  and  be  saved.  It  is  not  likely  that  such  aggravated 
sinners  ever  will  repent  of  their  apostasy,  but  it  plainly  affirms 
that  they  will  bo  damned  if  they  incorrigibly  continue  in  it. 

But  what  has  all  this  to  do  wdth  Novatianism  ?  Nothing  what- 
ever. Neither  of  these  passages  affirms  that  apostates  are  inca- 
pable by  God's  grace  to  repent  of  their  apostasy;  and  neither 
precludes  them,  if  penitent,  from  the  mercy  of"  God  or  the  com- 
munion of  the  Church.  And  if  these  do  not,  Novatian  may 
look  in  vain  to  other  passages  for  any  support  for  his  revolting 
opinion. 

§4.  The  Ante-Nicene  Church. 

The  students  of  ecclesiastical  history  may  be  somewhat  puz- 
zled by  the  near  approach  of  tlie  Ante-Nicene  Church  to  Nova- 
tianism. The  early  Fathers  were  very  rigid  in  their  penitentiary 
system.  They  kept  gross  offenders,  however  penitent,  out  of 
the  Church  for  many  years— in  some  cases  till  just  before  death 
—and  indeed  refused  reconciliation,  even  then,  to  those  who  had 
not  by  a  proper  length  of  time  demonstrated  the  sincerity  of 
their  repentance.  Hence,  they  have  been  charged  with  Nova- 
tianism. Socrates,  the  historian,  says  Asclepiades,  the  Novatian 
Bishop,  argued  this  question  with  Atticus,  the  Catholic  Bishop 
of  Constantinople.  When  Atticus  said  that  communion  might 
be  denied  even  at  the  point  of  death  to  such  as  had  sacrificed  to 
idols,  and  that  he  himself  had  sometimes  done  so,  Asclepiades 
replied:  "There  are  many  other  sins  unto  death,  as  the  Script- 
ure calls  them,  besides  sacrificing  to  idols,  for  which  you  shut 
the  clergy  out  of  the  Church;  and  we  the  laity,  remitting  them 
over  to  God  alone  for  their  pardon."    Novatian,  indeed,  denied 


170 


Sin  After  Jiistificaiion. 


that  God  would  pardon  such  willful  offenders.  But  the  difference 
between  the  Catholics  and  the  Novatians  was  this:  though  they 
frequently  agreed  in  their  practice,  yet  they  differed  in  their 
princi^jles;  the  Catholics  asserted  that  the  clergy  had  the  power 
of  the  keys,  in  the  exercise  of  which  they  could  bind  and  loose 
the  greatest  offenders,  excluding  them  for  a  greater  or  a  shorter 
period,  or  forever,  from  the  communion  of  the  Church,  or  recon- 
ciling them,  being  penitent,  at  their  discretion;  whereas  the  No- 
vatians denied  that  they  had  the  powder  to  loose  such  offenders 
though  tlioy  had  the  power  to  bind  them. 

The  later  Novatians,  indeed,  like  the  Catholics,  admitted  that 
God  might  forgive  the  penitent  offenders,  upon  their  repentance 
— thus  admitting  the  possibility  of  their  repenting.  But  both 
Catholics  and  Novatians  were  inconsistent  in  this,  that  they 
held  that  whatsoever  they  bound  or  loosed  on  earth  was  bound 
or  loosed  in  heaven:  if  this  were  the  case,  then,  if  the  Church 
denied  pardon  to  a  penitent,  how  could  they  expect  God  to  par- 
don him? 

§  5.  Testimony  of  Scripture. 

According  to  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  the  greatest 
sinners  have  been  promptly  pardoned  by  God  and  restored  to 
the  communion  of  the  Church,  and  even  to  the  ministry,  upon 
their  repentance.  God  pardons  them  as  soon  as  they  repent, 
and  the  Church  restores  them  as  soon  as  they  have  given  credi- 
ble evidence  of  their  repentance,  and  submitted  to  the  disciplin- 
ary censure  long  enough  to  prevent  scandal  by  their  restoration. 

How  speedily  were  David  and  Peter  pardoned,  upon  their 
penitence,  and  restored  to  their  official  standing  in  the  Church! 
Thus  David  prayed:  "  Piestore  unto  me  the  joy  of  thy  salvation; 
and  uphold  me  with  thy  free  Spirit.  Then  will  I  teach  trans- 
gressors thy  way,  and  sinners  shall  be  converted  unto  thee." 
"  Deliver  me  from  blood  guiltiness,  O  God,  thou  God  of  my  salva- 
tion; and  ray  tongue  shall  sing  aloud  of  thy  righteousness." 
fPs.'li.  12, 13,  14.)  Peter  wept  bitterly  over  his  apostasy,  and 
how  soon  is  he  restored  to  his  apostleship! 

The  incestuous  Corinthian  is  delivered  over  to  Satan— not  to 
be  damned,  but  subjected  to  severe  disciplinary  punishment; 
but  on  his  deep  and  manifest  repentance  he  is  speedily  restored 
to  the  communion,  of  the  Church.  God  forgave  liim,  mid  the 
Church  did  not  dare  to  withhold  its  forgiveness.    "  Sufficient  to 


Novatianism. 


171 


sucli  a  man,"  says  the  apostle,  "is  this  puuisliment,  which  was 
inflicted  of  many."    (1  Cor.  v.;  2  Cor.  ii.) 

Paul  speaks  of  some  "  who  concerning  faith  have  made  ship^ 
wreck:  of  whom  is  Hymeneus  and  Alexander;  whom,"  says  he, 
"  I  have  delivered  unto  Satan  "—that  is,  expelled  from  the  Church, 
as  all  outside  were  considered  under  the  power  of  Satun,  the  god 
of  this  world— not  that  they  might  continne  in  that  state  and  be 
finally  damned,  but  "that  they  may  learn  not  to  blaspheme." 
(1  Tim.  i.  19, 20. )  All  Church  censures,  except  in  extreme  cases, 
like  those  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  should  have  in  view  the 
salvation  of  the  offender  as  well  as  the  purity  of  the  Church  and 
the  honor  of  its  exalted  Head. 

§6.  Ancient  and  Modern  Tendencies  toward  Novatianism. 

Novatus,  a  presbyter  of  Carthage,  is  sometimes  cited  as  one  of 
the  founders  of  the  Novatian  sect.  At  first,  he  opposed  the 
strictness  of  his  Bishop,  Cyprian;  but  when  he  went  to  Kome  he 
joined  the  Novatians,  "although,"  says  Kurtz' (" Church  His- 
tory," p.  134),  "his  own  views  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  had 
been  the  very  opposite  to  theirs,  and  incited  them  to  separation." 

The  Donatists  in  the  fourth  century  adopted  the  leading 
opinion  of  the  Novatians,  and  contended  against  the  Catholics 
that  the  true  Church  is  composed  exclasively  of  holy  persons, 
thus  confounding  the  visible  with  the  invisible  Church,  forget- 
ting that  the  tares  and  wheat  grow  together  in  the  former  until 
the  time  of  harvest.  The  Catholics  held  that  a  prudent  disci- 
pline should  be  exercised  to  keep  the  Church  pure,  but  that  it 
does  not  cease  to  be  a  true  Church  because  it  contains  unholy 
members. 

As  before  the  times  of  Novatian  and  Donatas,  so  subsequently, 
down  to  even  our  times,  there  has  been  a  strong  leaning,  even  in 
catholic,  orthodox  Churches,  toward  Novatianism.  But  many 
heretical  and  schismatical  sects  have  been  distinguished  for  their 
maintenance  of  this  error — e.  r/.,  the  Apostblici,  Meletiaiis,  Luci- 
ferians,  and  others.  Dr.  Hey  thinks  that  the  Lutheran  and 
Anglican  Keformers  had  chiefly  in  view  the  Anabaptists,  in  their 
condemnation  of  this  extreme  rigor  against  the  lapsed.  We 
have  already  cited  the  condemnation  of  Novatianism  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  The  Fourteenth  Article  of  the  Helvetic 
Confession  declares:  "There  is  access  to  God  and  pardon  for 


172 


Sin  After  Justification. 


all  who  believe,  except  those  who  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost; 
therefore  the  Old  and  New  Novatians  and  Cathari  are  to  be  con- 
demned." By  the  N  ew  Novatians  and  Cathari  they  seem  to  re- 
fer to  the  Anabaptists. 

The  English  homilies  echo  the  language  of  the  article,  and 
assure  forgiveness  to  every  sinner  of  "  all  actual  sin  committed 
after  baptism,  if  he  truly  repent  and  turn  to  God."  "  Repent- 
ance is  never  too  late,  so  that  it  is  true  and  just." 

We  conclude  this  discussion  with  a  pregnant  passage  from 
Dr.  Knapp  ("Christian  Theology,"  Sec.  113.,  p.  398): 

Even  those,  who  after  their  reformation  and  the  bestowrnent  of  forgiveness  fall 
away  and  transgress  anew,  may  again  obtain  the  forgiveness  of  tlieir  sins  as  soon 
as  they  repent  and  believe  in  Christ.  So  the  Bible  everywhere  teaches,  both  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testament.  (Ezek.  xxxiii.  11;  1  Thess.  v.  9.)  Christ  com- 
mands us  to  be  forgiving  to  our  neighbor  who  has  wronged  us,  since  in  this  we 
shall  resemble  God,  who  is  easily  reconciled,  and  who  willingly  forgives  sin. 
Therefore  the  precept  (Matt,  xviii.  21,  22)  is  applicable  to  God.  This  position  is 
confirmed  by  the  examples  of  rr^any  apostates  in  the  Bible,  who,  after  tlie  commis- 
sion of  great  offenses,  were  again  received  into  favor— e.  fj.,  David  (2  Sam.  xii.) 
and  Peter  (Matt.  xxvi.).  The  condition  of  repentance  and  faith,  however,  is  in- 
dispensable. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  DOGMA  OF  INAMISSIBLE  GRACE  REFUTED. 

This  article  is  next  leveled  against  those  who  hold  to  the  iu- 
amissibility  of  grace. 

§  1.  Historical. 

As  we  have  seen,  this  error  was  broached  by  the  Anabaptists  at 
the  time  of  the  Keformation,  the  Twelfth  Article  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  attributing  it  to  the  Anabaptists,  by  name,  in 
the  Latin  recension— "the  Anabaptists,  who  deny  that  those  who 
have  been  justified  may  lose  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Calvin  and  his  followers  so  far  agreed  with  the  Anabaptists 
as  to  deny  that  the  elect,  after  receiving  justifying  grace,  can 
ever  lose  it;  but  they  did  not  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  "  they  can 
no  more  sin  while  they  live  here."  The  elect,  after  their  justi- 
fication and  regeneration,  may  sin  foully,  but  not  so  as  quite  to 
vacate  the  grace  of  God  or  to  imperil  their  final  salvation.  The 
Calvinistic  party  in  the  Church  of  England,  as  might  be  sup- 
posed, were  not  satisfied  with  this  article,  which  afiirms  that 
"after  we  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  we  may  depart  from 
grace  given  and  fall  into  sin,"  and  implies  that  the  fall  may  be 
total  and  final.  Hence  they  wanted  King  James  to  order  that 
the  following  clause  should  be  added:  "yet  neither  totally  nor 
finally."    But  the  petition  was  not  granted. 

An  attempt  had  been  previously  made  to  foist  in  the  same  error 
in  the  Fifth  of  the  Lambeth  Articles,  which  read  thus : 

The  true,  lively,  and  justifying  faith,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  justifying,  is  not 
extinguished,  doth  not  utterly  fail,  doth  not  vanish  away  in  the  elect,  either  final- 
ly or  totally* 

But  this  Calvinistic  Confession  was  also  repudiated,  though 
framed  by  Archbishop  Whitgift.    Hook  says: 

There  can  be  no  greater  proof  of  the  absence  of  Calvinism  fi-om  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles  than  the  fact  that  the  very  persons  who  were  condemning  the  orthodox 
for  innovation,  were  compelled  to  invent  new  articles  before  they  could  make  our 
Church  Calvinistic.    The  conduct  of  the  Archbishop  gave  much  offense  to  manv 

(173) 


174 


Sin  After  Justification. 


pious  persons,  and  especially  to  the  Queen;  and  this  attempt  to  introduce  Calvin- 
ism into  our  Church  entirely  failed. 

It  was  introduced,  however,  into  all  the  Eeformed  (or  Presby- 
terian) Churches  on  the  Continent  and  in  Great  Britain  and  Ire- 
land; and,  further,  it  was  ingrafted  into  the  various  Confessions 
of  the  Independents,  or  Congregationalists,  and  most  of  the 
Baptist  Confessions— where  it  is  still  retained.  Even  the  Cum- 
berland Presbyterians,  who  reject  the  decree  of  uncondition- 
al predestination,  indorse  the  dogma  of  inamissibie  grace, 
though  their  Predestination  brethren  say  they  are  inconsistent  in 
so  doing,  because,  if  they  renounce  the  covenant  of  election,  they 
ought  to  renounce  the  dogma  of  unconditional  perseverance, 
which  is  merely  its  corollary,  election  being,  as  they  say,  the  ba- 
sis of  perseverance. 

The  dogma  of  inamissibie  grace,  like  that  of  absolute  pre- 
destination, was  unknown  to  the  Church  before  the  time  of  the 
Pelagian  controversy,  when  it  was  propounded  by  Augustin. 
Indeed,  to  speak  properly,  Augustin  did  not  believe  in  the  ina- 
missibility  of  grace.  He  positively  and  repeatedly  asserts  that 
many  do  fall  from  a  state  of  grace — from  justification  and  re- 
generation— into  sin,  totally  and  finally.  But  he  held  that  some 
of  the  saints  were  predestinated  to  persevere  finally;  or  at  least, 
if  they  fell,  to  be  restored  before  they  died,  so  that  their  eternal 
salvation  was  absolutely  secured  by  the  decree  of  election.  He 
says: 

It  is  much  to  he  admired,  and  admired  again,  that  God,  to  some  of  his  children 
whom  he  hath  regenerated  in  Christ,  and  to  whom  he  hath  given  faith,  hope,  and 
love,  should  not  give  perseverance;  whereas  he  forgives  such  great  sins  unto 
strange  children,  and,  by  imparting  his  grace  unto  them,  makes  them  children  of 
his  own. 

.If 

And  again: 

For  of  such  we  dispute,  who  want  perseverance  in  goodness  and  go  out  of  the 
world  l)y  death,  with  the  goodness  of  their  wills  fallen  from  good  to  eviL  Let 
these  men  answer,  if  they  can,  why  God  did  not  take  away  such  men  from  the 
danger  of  life,  while  they  yet  lived  faithfully  and  religiously,  that  so  sin  and 
wickedness  might  not  have  changed  their  minds. 

Many  more  passages  of  the  same  complexion  may  be  found 
cited  from  Augustin's  works,  the  original  Latin  being  given,  in 
the  fourteenth  chapter  of  Goodwin's  Piedemption  Piedeemed," 
in  which  immortal  work  the  dogma  of  inamissibie  grace  is  shiv- 
ered to  atoms. 


The  Dogma  0/  Incimissihle  Grace  Itefuted. 


175 


Luther  was  at  first  a  great  admirer  of  Augastin,  and  em- 
braced his  predestinarian  theory;  but  he  afterward  relaxed  his 
sentiments,  and  in  particular  taught  that  saints  may  and  some- 
times do  fall  from  grace  totally  and  finally.  In  his  work  on 
Galatians  he  says:  "The  righteousness  of  the  law,  which  Paul 
here  calls  the  flesh,  is  so  far  from  justifying  men  that  they,  who 
after  they  have  received  the  Spirit  by  the  hearing  of  faith,  make 
a  defection  unto  it,  are  consummated  by  it " — /.  e.,  are  made  an  end 
of  and  destroyed  utterly.  On  these  words  "Ye  are  fallen  from 
grace,"  he  says:  "Ye  are  no  longer  in  the  kingdom  of  grace. 
He  that  falleth  from  grace  simply  losetli  expiation,  remission  of 
sins,  righteousness,  liberty,  and  that  life  which  Christ  by  his 
death  and  resurrection  has  merited  for  us." 

Melancthon  is  still  more  explicit  than  Luther,  as  he  wrote 
against  the  Anabaptist  fanatics  who  broached  the  doctrine  con- 
demned in  this  article.  He  says:  "These  are  but  errors  of  fa- 
natic men,  which  must  briefly  be  confuted,  who  conceit  that  men 
regenerated  cannot  lapse,  and  that  though  they  do  fall,  and  this 
against  the  light  of  their  conscience,  yet  they  are  righteous"  or 
in  a  state  of  justification.  He  continues:  " This  madness  is  to  be 
condemned,  and  both  instances  aud  sayings  from  the  scriptures  of 
the  apostles  and  prophets  are  opposed  to  it.  Saul  and  David 
pleased  God,  were  righteous,  had  the  Holy  Ghost  given  unto 
them,  yet  aftervvard  fell,  so  that  one  of  them  perished  utterly; 
the  other  returned  again  to  God.  There  are  many  sayings  to  the 
same  point."  And  having  cited  to  the  point  in  hand  Matt.  xii. 
43,  44;  2  Pet,  ii.  20,  21;  1.  Cor.  x.  12;  Rev.  ii.  5.,  he  subjoins: 
"These  and  the  like  sayings,  being  spoken  of  regenerate  men,  tes- 
tify that  they  may  fall,  and  that  in  case  they  fall  against  their 
consciences  they  please  not  God  unless  they  be  converted."  Else- 
where he  says:  "Whereby  it  hath  been  said  that  sins  remain  in 
the  regenerate,  it  is  necessary  that  a  difl'erence  be  made;  for  cer- 
tain it  is  that  they  who  rush  into  sinful  practices  against  con- 
science do  not  continue  in  peace,  nor  retain  faith,  righteousness, 
or  the  Holy  Ghost;  neither  can  faith  stand  with  an  evil  purpose 
of  heart  against  conscience."  And  a  little  after  he  says:  "But 
that  they  fall  from,  and  shed  {effnmhinf)  faith  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  become  guilty  of  the  wrath  of  God,  and  of  eternal 
punishment,  who  commit  sin  against  conscience,  many  sayings 
clearly  testify,  as  Gal.  v.  19;  1  Cor.  vi.  9,  etc."    And  again  in  1 


176 


Sin  After  Justification, 


Cor.  X.  12:  "  But  that  in  some  who  had  the  beginnings  of  faith, 
and  afterward  falling,  return  not,  that  faith  of  theirs  was  true 
before  it  was  lost  {excutitur),  the  saying  of  Peter  (2  Pet.  ii.  20) 
testifieth." 

That  learned  Lutheran,  Chemnitius,  and  in  fact,  the  Lutheran 
divines  generally,  use  the  same  language,  as  may  be  seen  in 
Goodwin's  "Eedemption  Eedeemed,"  Chap.  XV.  They  thus 
agree  precisely  with  the  Arminians,  or  Remonstrants,  of  a  later 
time,  and  the  Arminian  Methodists,  and  the  bulk  of  the  divines 
of  the  Church  of  England  and  its  offshoots. 

Lideed,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  who  believe  in  the  inamis- 
sibility  of  grace  can  subscribe  the  articles  and  homilies  of  the 
Church  of  England  and  repeat  its  offices,  especially  the  litany, 
in  which  are  the  most  fervent  deprecations  against  all  deadly  sin 
and  everlasting  damnation — of  which  there  can  be  no  danger  if 
grace  be  inamissible — and  the  burial  service,  in  which  is  this 
solemn  petition:  "O  holy  and  merciful  Saviour,  thou  most 
worthy  judge  eternal,  suffer  us  not  at  our  last  hour  for  any  pains 
of  death  to  fall  from  thee." 

It  is  said,  indeed,  that  the  admonitions  and  prayers  in  the  hom- 
ilies and  liturgy  against  apostasy  are  the  means  used  by  God  to 
effectually  prevent  it.  To  prevent  what?  An  utter  impossibil- 
ity? Discoursing  on  the  adrnonition  against  apostasy,  in  Heb. 
vi.,  John  Goodwin  says: 

It  stands  off  forty  feet  at  least  from  all  possibility,  that  the  apostle,  writing  only 
unto  those  whom  lie  judged  true  and  sound  believers  (as  appears  from  several 
places  in  the  Epistle,  as  iii.  14;  vi.  9)  should  in  the  most  serious,  emphatical, 
and  weighty  passages  hereof,  admonish  them  of  such  evils  or  dangers  as  only 
concerned  other  men,  and  whereunto  themselves  were  not  at  all  obnoxious;  yea, 
and  whereunto  if  they  had  been  obnoxious,  all  the  cautions,  admonitions,  warn- 
ings, threatenings  in  the  world  would  not,  according  to  their  principles  with 
whom  we  have  now  to  do,  have  relieved  or  delivered  them.  To  say  that  such  ad- 
monitions are  a  means  to  preserve  them  from  apostasy,  who  are  by  other  means 
(as  suppose  the  absolute  decree  of  God,  or  the  interposal  of  his  irresistible  power 
for  their  perseverance,  or  the  like)  in  no  possiiulity  of  apostatizing,  is  to  say  that 
washing  is  a  means  to  make  snow  white,  or  the  rearing  up  of  a  pillar  in  the  air  a 
means  to  keep  the  heavens  from  falling. 

On  Heb.  x.  38 — after  censuring  the  translators  for  putting 
"  any  man  "  instead  of  "  he  "  in  the  passage,  "  The  just  shall  live 
by  faith,  but  if  any  man  draw  back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleas- 
ure in  him  " — he  says: 

For  if  it  should  be  supposed  that  the  just  man,  who  is  in  a  way  and  under  a 


The  Dof/uia  of  Inamissihle  Grace  Refuted. 


177 


promise  of  living  by  his  faith,  were  in  no  danger  or  possibility  of  drawing  back, 
and  that  to  the  loss  of  the  favor  of  God  and  ruin  of  his  soul,  God  must  be  con- 
ceived to  speak  here  at  no  better  rate  of  wisdom  or  understanding  than  this:  The 
just  shall  live  by  his  faith,  but  if  he  shall  do  that  which  is  simply  and  utterly  im- 
possible for  him  to  do,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in  him.  What  savor  of 
wisdom,  yea,  or  of  common  sense,  is  there  in  admonishing  or  cautioning  well 
against  such  evils,  which  there  is  no  possibility  for  them  to  fall  into;  yea,  and 
this  known  unto  themselves?  Therefore  tliis  testimony,  for  confirmation  of  the 
doctrine  we  maintain,  is  like  '"'a  king  upon  his  throne,  against  whom  there  is  no 
rising  up." 

§2.  The  Thesis  to  be  Defended. 
Keeping  this  in  view,  we  shall  proceed  to  show  tha  saints  may 
and  do  fall  from  grace:  some  partly  but  not  totally  or  finally; 
some  totally,  but  not  finally;  and  others  both  totally  and  finally. 
And  this  will  be  shown  by  every  kind  of  proof  by  which  divine 
truth  is  set  forth  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  will  appear  by  the 
following  digest,  or  grammar,  of  some  of  the  salient  passages 
bearing  on  this  subject. 

§  3.  Amissibility  Set  Forth  in  Scripture  Didactically. 

The  amissibility  of  grace  is  set  forth  by  plain,  positive  didac- 
tic statement.  Thus  David  tells  Solomon:  "If  thou  seek  him, 
he  will  be  found  of  thee;  but  if  thou  forsake  him,  he  will  cast 
thee  off  forever,"  (1  Chron.  xxviii.  9.)  Thus  Azariah  told  Asa: 
"The  Lord  is  with  you,  while  ye  be  with  him;  and  if  ye  seek 
him,  he  will  be  found  of  you;  but  if  ye  forsake  him,  he  will  for- 
sake you."  (2  Chron.  xv.  2.)  This  principle  of  the  divine  gov- 
ernment is  articulately  and  emphatically  laid  down  by  God  in 
the  prophecy  of  Ezekiel:  "When  the  righteous  turneth  away 
from  his  righteousness,  and  committeth  iniquity,  and  doeth  ac- 
cording to  all  the  abominations  that  the  wicked  man  doeth,  shall 
he  live?  All  his  righteousness  that  he  hath  done  shall  not  be 
mentioned;  in  his  trespass  that  he  hath  trespassed,  and  in  his 
sin  that  he  hath  sinned,  in  them  shall  he  die.  Yet  yQ  say,  the 
way  of  the  Lord  is  not  equal.  Hear  now,  O  house  of  Israel,  Is 
not  my  way  equal?  are  not  your  ways  unequal?  AVhen  a 
righteous  man  turneth  away  from  his  righteousness,  and  com- 
mitteth iniquity,  and  dieth  in  them;  for  his  iniquity  that  he  hath 
done  shall  he  die.  Again,  when  the  wicked  man  turneth  away 
from  his  wickedness  that  he  hath  committed,  and  doeth  that 
which  is  lawful  and  right,  he  shall  save  his  soul  alive."  (Ezek. 
xviii.  24-27.)  This  equitable  principle  of  the  divine  government 
12  Vol.  II. 


178 


Sin  After  Justification. 


is  repeatedly  stated  in  this  book.  {Cf.  chapters  iii.,  xviii.,  xxxiii.) 
We  hazard  nothing  in  saying  that  but  for  the  poAverful  bias  of 
a  theological  system,  which  has  for  one  of  its  essential  elements 
the  inamissibility  of  grace,  not  a  man  upon  earth  would  have  ever 
dreamed  of  putting  any  other  interpretation  on  these  texts  than 
that  which  lies  on  their  very  surface.  They  are  also  totally  in- 
suscex)tible  of  any  other  meaning.  They  relate  facts  as  well 
known,  that  wicked  men  sometimes  turn  from  their  wickedness, 
and  righteous  men  sometimes  turn  from  their  righteousness. 
The  one  case  is  no  more  hypothetical  than  the  other;  neither 
Avould  have  been  stated  with  so  much  solemnity,  and  so  often  re- 
peated, if  the  parties  respectively  could  not  possibly  change  their 
positions  and  characters.  To  say  that  those  called  righteous  were 
not  really  righteous,  and  that  their  righteousness  was  self-right- 
eousness, or  some  other  factitious  thing  that  was  not  good,  is  as 
absurd  as  it  would  be  to  say  that  those  called  wicked  were  not 
really  wicked,  and  that  their  wickedness  was  not  real,  but  facti- 
tious wickedness.  If  the  wickedness  of  the  latter  was  not  real 
they  ought  not  to  turn  from  it;  and  if  the  righteousness  of  the 
former  was  not  real  righteousness  they  ought  to  turn  from  it: 
they  will  die  if  they  do  not.  But  the  reward  in  the  one  case  is 
life,  and  the  penalty  in  the  other  case  is  death,  whether  temporal 
or  eternal  belongs  not  to  this  argument:  only  Universalists  hold 
that  those  who  die  in  their  sins,  as  is  said  of  these  apostates,  are 
nevertheless  saved  in  the  life  eternal.  But  our  Lord  told  the 
Jews  that  if  they  rejected  him  they  should  die  in  their  sins,  and 
he  adds:  "  Whither  I  go  ye  cannot  come."    (John  viii.  21-24.) 

The  principle  in  question  is  laid  down  explicitly  by  the  apostle, 
(2  Pet.  ii.  20-22):  "For  if  after  they  have  escaped  the  pollu- 
tions of  the  world  through  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  and  Sav- 
iour Jesus  Christ,  they  are  again  entangled  therein,  and  over- 
come, the  latter  end  is  worse  with  them  than  the  beginning. 
For  it  had  been  better  for  them  not  to  have  known  the  way  of 
righteousness,  than,  after  they  have  known  it,  to  turn  from  the 
holy  commandment  delivered  unto  them.  But  it  is  happened 
unto  them  according  to  the  true  proverb.  The  dog  is  turned  to 
his  own  vomit  again;  and,  The  sow  that  has  washed  to  her  wal- 
lowing in  the  mire." 

It  speaks  but  little  for  the  exegetical  skill  of  those  who  say 
the  knowledge  of  those  apostates  was  "  merely  speculative,  not 


The  Dogma  of  Inamissihie  Grace  Befuted. 


179 


experimental."  I£  this  be  merely  speculative  knowledge,  we 
wish  there  were  more  of  it  among  men,  as  through  it  they  would 
escape  the  pollutions  of  the  world.  Nay,  this  knowledge  is  em- 
inently experimental  and  practical ;  it  is  the  very  same  as  that  of 
which  our  Lords  speaks  in  John  xvii.  3,  and  the  apostles  in  Eph. 
iv.;  1  John  ii.  4;  iii.  6.;  Phil.  iii.  And  it  speaks  as  little  for 
the  candor  or  common  sense  of  those  who  say  that  these  apos- 
tates were  dogs  and  swine,  and  that  notwithstanding  their  vom- 
iting and  washing  their  nature  was  never  changed.  This  is 
to  make,  as  Goodwin  says,  "parables  or  similitudes  run  on  all 
fours."  The  only  points  of  resemblance  here  are  the  vomiting 
and  the  cleaning,  as  Calvin  clearly  saw.  "  Suppose,"  says  Good- 
win, "  a  dog  should,  by  casting  up  his  vomit,  be  turned  into  a 
sheep,  and  afterward  should,  by  a  contrary  means — viz.,  by  re- 
suming it— become  a  dog  again;  might  it  not  truly  and  properly 
enough  be  said  that  this  dog,  though  lately  a  sheep,  is  now 
become  a  dog  again?  "  But  it  is  humiliating  to  notice  such 
pitiful  subterfuges. 

This  passage  agrees  precisely  with  our  Lord's  declaration: 
"  Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth;  but  if  the  salt  have  lost  his  savor, 
wherewith  shall  it  be  salted?  it  is  thenceforth  good  for  nothing, 
but  to  be  cast  out,  and  to  be  trodden  under  foot  of  men."  (Matt. 
V.  13.)  At  first  view  this  passage  seems  to  favor  Novatianism; 
but  it  does  not.  It  affirms  that  Christians  may  fall  from  grace, 
but  it  does  not  say  that  they  cannot  be  reclaimed.  The  peculiar 
virtue  of  salt  when  once  lost  (as  it  may  be)  cannot  be  restored  by 
any  known  process;  it  is  worthless.  If  Christians  whose  busi- 
ness it  is  to  purify  the  world  fail  to  do  so,  and  are  corrupted  by 
it,  there  is  nothing  in  the  world  which  can  restore  to  them  their 
purifying  virtue;  they  become  worthless  as  the  world  itself. 
He  who  first  made  the  mineral  can,  indeed,  impart  to  it  afresh 
its  saline  property;  so  apostates  can  be  restored  by  his  grace,  if 
they  will  avail  themselves  of  it.  But  as  the  loss  is  total,  so  it 
may  be,  and  frequently  is,  final. 

Al),  Lord,  witli  trembling  I  confess 
A  gracious  soul  may  fall  from  grace; 
The  salt  may  lose  its  seasoning  power 
And  never,  never  find  it  more. 

§4.  Amissibility  Implied  in  Positive  Divine  Injunctions. 

The  amissibility  of  grace  is  implied  in  positive  divine  injunc- 


180 


Sin  After  Justification. 


tions.  By  injunctions  we  mean  commands,  enjoining  final  per- 
severance, and  interdicts  of  apostasy,  with  proper  legislative 
sanctions.  Tliis  is  fully  set  forth  in  Heb.  iii.,  where  the  apostle 
is  addressing  "  holy  brethren,  partakers  of  the  heavenly  calling  " 
in  Christ  Jesus,  "whose  house  are  we,  if  we  hold  fast  the  confi- 
dence and  the  rejoicing  of  the  hope  firm  unto  the  end."  The 
injunctions  given  to  these  "holy  brethren,  partakers  of  the 
heavenly  calling,  the  house  of  Christ,"  are  of  this  tenor:  "  Where- 
fore as  the  Holy  Ghost  saith.  To-day  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice, 
harden  not  your  hearts,  as  in  the  provocation,  in  the  day  of 
temptation  in  the  wilderness.  Take  heed,  brethren,  lest  there  be 
in  any  of  you  an  evil  heart  of  unbelief,  in  departing  from  the 
living  God,  But  exhort  one  another  daily,  while  it  is  called  to- 
day; lest  any  of  you  be  hardened  through  the  deceitfulness  of 
sin.  For  we  are  made  partakers  of  Christ,  if  we  hold  the  be- 
ginning of  our  confidence  steadfast  unto  the  end;  while  it  is  said. 
To-day  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,  harden  not  your  hearts,  as  in 
the  provocation.  And  to  whom  sware  he  that  they  should  not 
enter  into  his  rest,  but  to  them  that  believed  not?  So  we  see 
that  they  could  not  enter  in  because  of  unbelief.  Let  us  there- 
fore fear,  lest,  a  promise  being  left  us  of  entering  into  his  rest, 
any  of  you  should  seem  to  come  short  of  it.  Let  us  labor  there- 
fore to  enter  into  that  rest,  lest  any  man  fall  after  the  same  ex- 
ample of  unbelief.  Seeing  then  that  we  have  a  great  High-priest, 
that  is  passed  into  the  heavens,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  let  us 
hold  fast  our  profession."    (Heb.  iii.;  iv.) 

Here  is  the  key-note  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  All  the 
exhortations,  warnings,  expostulations,  and  promises  "  contained 
in  the  epistle  are  based  upcm  this  divine  legislation.  God  com- 
mands us  to  persevere  in  faith  and  holiness;  he  forbids  any  dere- 
liction under  pain  of  exclusion  from  the  heavenly  rest.  The  plain 
English  of  it  is  simply  this:  Continue  to  the  end  of  your  lives  in 
faith  and  obedience,  and  you  will  be  saved;  otherwise  you  will  be 
lost  forever.  It  is  pitiful  to  see  the  torturing  methods  adopted  to 
evade  the  force  of  this  plain  injunction.  Apostates,  say  some, 
only  seem  to  come  short  of  entering  heaven — though  they  really 
do  enter,  ns  none  can  finally  fall  from  grace.  But  the  apostle 
tells  us  what  this  seeming  to  come  short  means;  it  is  obviously 
failing  to  enter  heaven,  just  as  those  whose  carcasses  fell  in  the 
wilderness  failed  to  enter  Canaan.    MacKnight,  though  a  pro- 


The  Dogma  of  Inamissihle  Grace  Refuted. 


181 


fessed  Calvinist,  renders  "should  actually  fall  short  of  it."  He 
refers  to  his  note  on  1  Cor.  vii.,  where  he  says: 

"And  I  am  certain  that  even  I  have  the  Spirit  of  God."  The  word  Jo/vtw  in  tliis, 
as  in  many  other  passages,  does  not  express  doubting,  but  certainty.  Thus  1  Cor.  iv. 
9:  "I  am  certain  God  hath."  1  Cor.  viii.  2:  "If  therefore  any  one  is  confident 
of  knowing."  Heb.  iv.  1:  "Any  of  you  should  actually  fall  short."  Mark  x.  32: 
"They  who  exercise  rule."  Luke  viii.  18:  "What  he  really  hath."  1  Cor.  xi. 
16:  "If  any  one  resolves  to  be  contentious."  1  Cor.  xiv.  32:  "If  any  one  really 
is  a  prophet."  To  show  that  the  Greeks  themselves  used  the  -word  to  denote  cer- 
tainty and  reality,  Dr.  Pearce  quotes  Ulpian,  in  Demosth.  Olynth.  i.,  wlio  says:  "Ao- 
KEiv  is  used  by  the  ancients,  not  always  to  express  what  is  doubtful,  but  likewise  to 
express  what  is  certain."  From  these  examples  it  is  evident  that  the  word  Jo/cfw 
in  this  verse  does  not  imply  that  the  apostle  was  in  any  doubt  whether  he  was  in- 
spired in  giving  this  judgment:  it  is  only  a  soft  way  of  expressing  his  certain 
knowledge  of  his  own  inspiration,  and  may  have  been  used  in  irony  of  the  false 
teacher,  who  called  his  inspiration  in  question. 

Dr.  Moses  Stuart,  of  the  same  school,  in  his  note  on  Heb.  iv. 
1,  says: 

Lest  any  of  you  may  fail  of  obtaining  it.  By  sacred  and  classical  usage  (hneu) 
IS  frequently  joined  with  other  verbs,  without  making  any  essential  addition  to  the 
sense  of  them.  It  is  said,  therefore,  to  be  used  i:)leonasticaUy ;  by  which,  however, 
can  be  meant  only  that  it  is  incapable  of  being  precisely  rendered  into  our  own 
language,  and  apparently  adds  nothing  essential  to  the  sense  of  a  phrase.  But 
even  this  is  not  exactly  true  of  (hictio.  In  many  cases  it  is  plainly  designed  to  soften 
the  expression  to  which  it  is  attached — e.  g.,  1  Cor.  vii.  40,  Paul  says:  "I  seem  to 
myself  to  possess  the  Spirit  of  God  " — a  modest  way  of  asserting  the  fact,  instead  of 
speaking  categorically.  In  a  similar  way  6ok£o  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  37;  x.  12:  "he  who 
seems  to  himself  to  stand;"  iii.  18;  iv.  9.  In  a  few  cases  it  is  difficult  to  distin- 
guish what  addition  is  made  to  the  phrase  by  the  use  of  doKiu — e.  g.,  Luke  xxii. 
24 — Jcj/ccZ  elvaL=elrj.  So  Luke  viii.  18;  6  doKti  ex^tv  is  expressed  in  Luke  xix.  26 
by  b  kx^i-;  1  Cor.  xi.  16.  There  can  scarely  be  a  doubt,  however,  that  in  all  cases 
the  Greeks  designed  to  give  some  coloring  to  a  sentence  by  employing  it.  It  would 
often  seem  to  be  something  near  to  our  may,  might,  can,  could,  etc.,  when  used  to 
soften  forms  of  expression  that  might  have  been  categorical.  So  Theophylact 
understood  it  in  our  phrase;  he  tlujs  explains:  "  lest  he  may  come  short,  and  fail  to 
enter  into  the  promised  rest."  The  writer  uses  a  mild  and  gentle  addi-ess,  not  say- 
ing tx^  vaTEpT]Gi;i^  but  iirj  6oKij  vcrep/jKevai.  This,  I  apprehend,  is  hitting  the  exact 
force  of  the  phrase  here,  an  imperfect  view  of  which  is  given  in  tlie  lexicons. 

If  in  these  cases  do/Jio  be  not  absolutely  expletive,  it  must  be 
confessed,  as  Stewart  says,  it  is  difficult  to  render  it  in  English. 
If  it  does  not  strengthen  the  term,  it  surely  does  not  weaken  it. 

Bloomfield  renders:  "Let  us  then  be  afraid  lest,  though  there 
be  a  promise  left  us  of  entering  into  his  rest,  any  of  you  should  be 
found  (lit.  *  be  deemed')  to  have  fallen  short  of  it."    He  says: 

I  find  this  view  of  the  sense  confirmed  by  the  Peschito  Syriac,  Vulgate,  and  Ar- 


182 


Sin  A fter  Justification. 


abic  versions  and  tlie  best  modern  expositors;  and  it  also  seems  required  by  the  con- 
text, and  the  usus  linguee  as  to  Kara'/.t'nru^  whicli,  as  it  is  used  by  Polybius,  often  of  a 
/tope,  by  others  of  an  inheritance,  so  may  it  of  a  promise;  especially,  since  the  prom- 
ise iiere  has  reference  to  the  heavenly  inheritance.  Besides  the  sense,  "a  promise 
being  still  /e//,"  is  far  more  agreeable  to  the  context,  implying  that  the  promised 
rest  had  not  yet  been  enjoyed,  but  was  left  for  others  to  enter  upon.  The  above 
reading  of  coki]  is  confirmed  by  the  Peschito  Syriac  version,  and  by  an  able  par- 
aphrase. However,  the  full  sense  is,  "should  be  deemed  by  the  event" — a  mild  ex- 
pression, intended  to  soften  the  harshness  of  the  term  vcreprjKhai,  implying  utter 
failure,  usually  by  neglect. 

If  oo/.rj  be  not  merely  expletive,  or  used  iirhanehj,  it  means  to 
apjyeaTj  to  be  obvious,  which  is  what  Bloomfielcl  means  by 
"deemed  by  the  event."  Apostates  not  only  fail,  but  obviously 
fail  to  enter  into  the  heavenly  rest. 

An  apology  is  perhaps  due  for  dwelling  so  long  upon  so  clear 
a  case;  but  it  is  found  in  the  fact  that  it  absolutely  settles  this 
question.  God  commands  us  to  persevere,  and  threatens  us 
that  if  we  do  not  persevere,  upon  his  oath,  we  shall  not  enter 
into  his  rest.  AVell  may  we  have  the  fear  which  begets  caution 
and  diligent  effort,  as  this  serious  warning  is  no  empty  threat. 
"Yengeance  is  mine:  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord;  and  again. 
The  Lord  will  judge  his  people  " — "  will  condemn  and  punish 
his  apostatizing  people,"  as  Bloomfield  and  others  interpret 
Heb.  X.  30. 

This  gives  force  to  the  injunction  of  the  apostle,  addressed  to 
"all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus,  at  Pliilippi,  with  the  Ijishops 
and  deacons:"  "Wherefore,  my  beloved,  as  ye  have  always 
obeyed,  not  as  in  my  presence  only,  but  now  much  more  in  my 
•absence,  work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling: 
for  it  is  God  which  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his 
good  i^leasure— holding  forth  the  word  of  life;  that  I  may  re- 
joice in  the  day  of  Christ,  that  I  have  not  run  in  vain,  neither 
labored  in  vain."  ( Phil.  ii.  12-16. )  He  gives  this  injunction  to 
"  saints,"  who  could  work  out  their  own  salvation,  because  God 
worked  in  them,  and  who  for  that  very  reason  were  bound  to  do 
so— and  that  with  fear  and  trembling,  lest  they  might  prove  de- 
linquent, and  so  the  apostle's  labor,  so  far  as  they  were  concerned, 
should  be  lost;  whereas  if  they  complied  with  the  injunction  he 
should  have  the  great  privilege  of  rejoicing  over  their  salvation 
in  the  day  of  Christ,  that  is,  the  day  of  final  retribution.  Can 
any  thing  be  more  explicit  than  this? 


Tlie  Dogma  of  Tnamissihle  Grace  Refuted, 


183 


Then  look  at  the  "  commandment "  to  fidelity,  so  often  repeated 
in  "the  final  document  of  the  New  Testament  "—the  First  Epistle 
of  John— e.  (J.:  "  My  little  children,  these  things  write  I  unto  you 
that  ye  sin  not."  "  I  have  not  written  unto  you  because  ye  know  not 
the  truth,  but  because  ye  know  it."  "  Let  that  therefore  abide  in 
you,  wdiicli  ye  have  heard  from  the  beginning.  If  that  which  ye 
have  heard  from  the  beginning  shall  remain  in  you,  ye  also 
shall  continue  in  the  Son,  and  in  the  Father.  And  this  is  the 
promise  that  he  hath  promised  us,  even  eternal  life.  These 
things  have  I  written  unto  you  concerning  them  that  seduce  you. 
And  now  little  children,  abide  in  him;  that,  when  he  shall  ap- 
pear, we  may  have  confidence,  and  not  be  ashamed  before  him 
at  his  coming."    (1  John  ii.) 

The  beloved  disciple  must  indeed  have  been  in  his  dotage — in- 
spiration being  out  of  the  question — if  he  took  so  much  pains  to 
command  his  spiritual  children  to  do  what  they  could  not  lielp 
doing,  and  not  to  do  what  they  could  not  help  avoiding,  and 
that  under  the  peril  of  losing  what  was  inamissively  secured  to 
them.  But  we  should  have  to  transcribe  a  large  j)ortion  of  the 
Scriptures  if  we  Avere  to  adduce  all  the  passages  which  enjoin 
perseverance  in  piety  as  the  condition  of  ultimate  salvation. 

§5.  Amissibility  Implied  in  Exhortations  to  Perseverance. 

The  amissibility  of  grace  is  implied  in  the  exhortations  to 
perseverance,  with  which  the  Scriptures  abound.  These  exhor- 
tations are  so  numerous  that  one  knows  not  where  to  begin  or 
end  in  citing  them.  They  are  coupled,  too,  with  dehortations 
from  apostasy,  of  the  most  pointed  character.  Thus  our  Lord 
says  repeatedly  to  his  disciples:  "  Take  ye  heed,  watch  and  pray." 
"Watch  ye  therefore;  for  ye  know  not  when  the  master  of  the 
house  Cometh,  lest  coming  suddenly  he  find  you  sleeping.  And 
what  I  say  unto  you  I  say  unto  all.  Watch."  "Watch  ye  and 
pray,  that  ye  enter  not  into  temptation."  (Mark  xiii.;  xiv. ) 
"Exhorting  them  to  continue  in  the  faith."  (Acts  xiv.  22.)  " 
"  Take  heed  therefore  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock,  over 
the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers,  to  feed  the 
Church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood. 
For  I  know  this,  that  after  my  departing  shall  grievous  wolves 
enter  in  among  you,  not  sparing  the  flock.  Also  of  your  own 
selves  shall  men  arise,  speaking  perverse  things,  to  draw  away 


184 


Sin  After  Justification. 


disciples  after  them.  Therefore  ^vatch,  and  remember,  that  by 
the  space  of  three  years  I  ceased  not  to  warn  every  one  night  and 
day  with  tears."  (Acts  xx.  28-31.^  Yet  there  was  no  possibility 
of  their  seduction  to  error  and  sin  and  final  ruin !  Paul  might 
have  spared  his  exhortations,  and  also  his  toils  and  tears! 

"  Be  not  overcome  of  evil,  but  overcome  evil  with  good." 
(Eom.  xii.  21.)  "It  is  high  time  to  wake  out  of  sleep:  for  now 
is  our  salvation  nearer  than  when  we  believed."  "  Let  us  therefore 
cast  off  the  works  of  darkness,  and  let  us  put  on  the  armor  of 
light."  "  But  put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  make  not  pro- 
vision for  the  flesh  to  fulfill,  the  lusts  thereof."  (Kom.  xiii.  11-14.) 
'What  impertinent,  supererogatory  counsels  are  these,  if  believers f 
as  those  were  whom  Paul  addressed,  cannot  fall  into  the  scandal- 
ous sins  against  which  they  are  here  admonished.  Truly  those 
who  do  not  cast  off  these  works  of  darkness  will  bo  cast  into 
outer  darkness,  which  will  be  felt  to  be  the  more  horrible  because 
they  once  walked  in  the  light. 

"  Know  ye  not  that  they  which  run  in  a  race  run  all,  but  one 
receiveth  the  prize?  So  run,  that  ye  may  obtain.  And  every 
man  that  striveth  for  the  mastery  is  temperate  in  all  things. 
Now  they  do  it  to  obtain  a  corruptible  crown ;  but  we  an  incor- 
ruptible. I  therefore  so  run,  not  as  uncertainly;  so  fight  I,  not 
as  one  that  beateth  the  air:  but  I  keep  under  my  body,  and 
bring  it  into  subjection;  lest  that  by  any  means,  when  I  have 
preached  to  others,  I  myself  should  be  a  castaway."  (1  Cor.  ix. 
24-27.)  Why  should  Paul  urge  the  Corinthian  believers  to  run 
that  race  and  gain  the  crown  if  they  could  not  help  running,  or 
whether  they  ran  or  not  could  not  fail  to  get  the  crown?  And 
why  should  he  set  himself  before  them  as  an  example — exercis- 
ing himself  with  the  greatest  diligence  and  godly  fear,  lest  after 
being  a  herald  to  other  athletes,  he  himself  should  be  hurled 
from  the  stadium  as  vanquished  in  the  contest,  if  there  were  no 
possibility  of  failure?  "Therefore,  my  beloved  brethren,  be  ye 
steadfast,  unmovable,  always  abounding  in  the  work  of  the 
Lord,  forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  your  labor  is  not  in  vain  in  the 
Lord."  (1  Cor.  xv.  58.)  Why  exhort  his  "  beloved  brethren  "  thus 
to  perseverance  in  their  "  labor,"  if  there  was  no  danger  of  their 
ceasing  to  labor  and  losing  their  reward? 

"  We  then,  as  workers  together  with  him,  beseech  you  also  that 
ye  receive  not  the  grace  of  God  in  vain."    (2  Cor.  vi.  1.)   AYhy  this 


The  Dogma  of  Inamissihle  Grace  Befiitecl.  185 


exhortation,  if  grace  be  inamissible  ?  How  can  it  be  received  in 
vain,  if  it  infallibly  secures  our  salvation?  "And  let  us  not 
be  weary  in  well-doing:  for  in  due  season  we  shall  reap,  if  we 
faint  not."  (Gal.  vi.  9.)  Why  this  exhortation,  if  we  cannot 
faint?  or  whether  we  faint  or  not,  we  shall  be  sure  to  reap? 

After  exhorting  the  Ephesians  to  abstain  from  the  gross  vices 
of  the  heathen  around  them,  the  apostle  says:  "Let  no  man  de- 
ceive you  with  vain  words;  for  because  of  these  things  cometh 
the  wrath  of  God  upon  the  children  of  disobedience.  Be  not  ye 
therefore  partakers  with  them.  For  ye  were  sometimes  dark- 
ness, but  now  are  ye  light  in  the  Lord:  walk  as  children  of  light." 
"  See  then  that  ye  walk  circumspectly:  not  as  fools,  but  as  wise." 
"Finally,  my  brethren,  be  strong  in  the  Lord,  and  in  the  power 
of  his  might.  Put  on  the  whole  armor  of  God,  that  ye  may 
be  able  to  stand  against  the  wiles  of  the  devil."  (Eph.  v.;  vi.) 
Why  all  these  exhortations,  if  they  could  not  be  overcome  by  the 
world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil?  if  there  was  no  possibility  of  their 
being  partakers  with  the  wicked  in  their  sins  and  punishment? 

"Ye  know  how  we  exhorted  and  comforted  and  charged 
every  one  of  you,  as  a  father  doth  his  children,  that  ye  would 
walk  worthy  of  God,  who  hath  called  you  unto  his  kingdom 
and  glory."  (1  Thess.  ii.  11,  12.)  Why  all  this  exhorting,  com- 
forting, and  charging,  if  they  could  not  help  so  walking,  and  if 
they  could  not  fail  of  "his  kingdom  and  glory?"  Then  see  how 
the  apostle  exhorts  the  Thessalonian  brethren  in  the  close  of  this 
Epistle — precisely  as  if  he  knew  they  were  both  to  fall  into  the 
sins  which  are  there  specified,  and  to  neglect  the  duties  which 
are  there  prescribed:  would  there  be  any  sense  or  consistency 
in  his  doing  so,  if  such  had  not  been  the  case  ? 

After  calling  attention  to  the  worthies  who  had  successfully 
run  their  race,  the  apostle  thus  exhorts  the  Hebrew  Christians: 
"  Wherefore,  seeing  we  also  are  compassed  about  with  so  great  a 
cloud  of  witnesses,  let  us  lay  aside  every  weight,  and  the  sin 
which  doth  so  easily  beset  us,  and  let  us  run  with  patience  [per- 
severance] the  race  that  is  set  before  us,  looking  unto  Jesus  the 
author  and  finisher  of  our  faith — lest  ye  be  wearied  and  faint  in 
your  minds.  Ye  have  not  yet  resisted  unto  blood,  striving  against 
sin.  And  ye  have  forgotten  the  exhortation  Avliich  speaketh  unto 
you  as  unto  children.  My  son  despise  not  thou  the  chastening  of 
the  Lord,  nor  faint  when  thou  art  rebuked  of  him:  Wherefore 


186  Sin  After  Justification. 

lift  up  the  hands  which  hang  down,  and  the  feeble  knees;  and 
make  straight  paths  for  your  feet,  lest  that  which  is  lame  be 
turned  out  of  the  way;  but  let  it  rather  be  healed.  Follow  peace 
with  all  men,  and  holiness,  without  which  no  man  can  see  the 
•Lord:  looking  diligently  lest  any  man  fail  of  the  grace  of  God: 
Wherefore  we  receiving  a  kingdom  which  cannot  be  moved,  let 
us  have  grace,  whereby  we  may  serve  God  acceptably  with  rever- 
ence and  godly  fear:  for  our  God  is  a  consuming  fire."  (Heb.  xii.) 
What  sense  or  pertinency  is  there  in  these  exhortations,  if  their 
perseverance  in  the  Christian  race  was  certain,  absolute,  inevita- 
ble— if  they  could  not  fail  of  the  grace  of  God,  fall  behind  in 
the  race,  and  so  lose  the  prize?    {Cf.  Eom.  iii.  23;  Heb.  iv.  1.) 

"Wherefore,  beloved,  seeing  ye  look  for  such  things,  be  dil- 
igent that  ye  may  be  found  of  him  in  peace,  without  spot  and 
blameless.  Ye  therefore,  beloved,  seeing  ye  know  these  things 
before,  beware  lest  ye  also,  being  led  away  with  the  error  of  the 
wicked,  fall  from  your  own  steadfastness.  But  grow  in  grace 
and  in  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesas  Christ." 
(2  Pet.  iii.  14-18.)  Why  should  the  condition  of  future  retribu- 
tion move  them  to  diligence?  Why  should  they  beware  of  se- 
duction and  apostasy?  Why  should  they  be  so  concerned  to 
grow  in  grace,  if  they  could  not  lose  it,  and  fail  of  their  reward? 
Peter  evidently  agreed  with  his  beloved  brother  Paul,"  and 
the  beloved  disciple  John,  who  exhorts  his  converts:  "Look  to 
yourselves,  that  we  lose  not  those  things  which  we  have  wrought, 
but  that  we  receive  a  full  reward."  (2  John  8.)  Why  should  they 
beware  of  losing  what  cannot  be  lost?  No  matter  which  read- 
ing is  adopted — we  or  ye — it  is  clear  that  the  apostle  considered 
that  the  reward  might  be  lost.  By  saying  a  full  reward,  Bloom- 
field  suggests  that  "  -Xrjpr)  hints  at  some  reward  that  the  teacher 
would  receive  in  the  other  case;  which,  indeed,  were  but  just, 
since  disciples  may  apostatize  and  bring  discredit  on  the  master, 
without  his  being  to  blame." 

§  G.  Amissibility  Implied  in  the  Expostulations  Concern- 
ing Apostasy. 

The  amissibility  of  grace  is  implied  in  the  expostulations  in 
regard  to  apostasy*  with  which  the  Scriptures  abound.  How  pa- 
thetic are  these  expostulations  in  Ezek.  iii. ;  xviii.;  xxxiii.  Why 
will  ye  die,  O  house  of  Israel?    The  righteouness  of  the  right- 


The  Dogma  of  Liamissihle  Grace  Befided. 


187 


eoas  shall  not  deliver  liim  iu  the  day  of  his  transgression.  When 
I  shall  say  to  the  righteous  that  ye  shall  surely  live:  if  he  trust 
to  his  own  righteousness,  and  commit  iniquity,  all  his  righteous- 
ness shall  not  be  remembered;  but  for  his  iniquity  that  he  hath 
committed,  he  shall  die  for  it."  How  often  is  this  repeated  by 
God  in  this  in'ophecy,  ending  thus:  "Yet  ye  say,  The  way  of  the 
Lord  is  not  equal.  O  ye  house  of  Israel,  I  will  judge  you  every 
one  after  his  ways."  AVe  have  already  noticed  the  princij^le  of 
the  divine  government  here  recognized;  the  point  now  to  be  re- 
garded is  the  great  stress  which  is  here  laid  upon  it.  It  would 
seem  that  the  Holy  Spirit  foresaw^  the  error  in  questiou,  and 
took  this  method  to  refute  it.  Hoav  strange  that  it  should  be  re- 
vived and  perpetuated  in  these  last  days ! 

How  did  our  Lord  expostulate  with  his  disci^^les  in  regard  to 
apostasy,  of  which  many  were  guilty:  "Will  ye  also  go  away?  '* 
(John  vi.  66,  67.)  He  knew  that  there  was  one  of  the  twelve 
that  would  apostatize,  and  this  gave  force  to  his  expostula- 
tion. 

The  apostle,  writing  to  the  Corinthians,  says:  "Through  thy 
knowledge  shall  the  weak  brother  perish,  for  wdiom  Christ  died? 
But  wdien  ye  sin  so  against  the  brethren,  and  w^ound  their  weak 
conscience,  ye  sin  against  Christ.  Wherefore,  if  meat  make  my 
brother  to  offend,  I  will  eat  no  meat  while  the  world  standeth." 
(1  Cor.  viii.  11-13.)  Only  one  sense  can  be  attached  to  these 
words.  The  apostle  expostulates  with  the  Corinthians  on  be- 
half of  the  w^eak  brethren,  that  they  should  be  exceedingly  care- 
ful not  to  cause  them  to  stumble,  and  thus  those  for  whom  Christ 
died  should  be  caused  to  i^erish.    {Cf.  Eom.  xiv.  27.) 

Hear  how  the  apostle  expostulates  with  the  Galatians:  "  I  mar- 
vel tliat  ye  are  so  soon  removed  from  him  that  called  you  into  the 
grace  of  Christ  unto  another  gospel,  which  is  not  another."  "  O 
foolish  Galatians,  who  hath  bewitched  you,  that  ye  should  not 
obey  the  truth,  before  whose  eyes  Jesus  Christ  hath  been  evi- 
dently set  forth,  crucified  among  you?  this  only  would  I  learn  of 
you.  Received  ye  the  Spirit  by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the 
hearing  of  faith?  "  "Are  ye  so  foolish?  having  begun  in  the  Spirit, 
are  ye  now  made  perfect  by  the  flesh  ?  "  "  Stand  fast  therefore  in 
the  liberty  w^herewith  Christ  hath  made  us  free,  and  be  not  en- 
tangled again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage.  Behold,  I  Paul  say 
unto  you,  that  if  ye  be  circumcised  Christ  shall  profit  you  notli- 


188 


Sin  After  Justification. 


ing."  "  Christ  is  become  of  no  effect  unto  yon,  whosoever  of  you  are 
justified  by  the  law ;  ye  are  fallen  from  grace."  "  Ye  did  run  well, 
who  did  hinder  you,  that  ye  should  not  obey  the  truth?"  *'Be 
not  deceived;  God  is  not  mocked:  for  whatsoever  a  man  soweth, 
that  shall  he  also  reap.  For  he  that  soweth  to  the  flesh  shall  of 
the  flesh  reap  corruption;  bat  he  that  soweth  to  the  Spirit  shall 
of  the  Spirit  reap  life  everlasting.  And  let  us  not  be  weary  in 
well-doing:  for  in  due  season  we  shall  reap  if  we  faint  not." 
But  the  whole  Epistle  is  a  continued  expostulation  with  them  in 
regard  to  apostasy,  into  which  many  of  them  had  fallen  and  of 
which  the  rest  were  in  imminent  danger.  They  did  run  well,  but 
were  hindered;  they  had  sown  to  the  Spirit,  but  were  now  sowing 
to  the  flesh,  and  the  apostle  expostulates  with  them  on  their  sad 
defection,  urging  them  to  start  afresh  in  the  divine  life,  as  it  was 
necessary  for  them  to  be  born  again,  so  completely  had  they — 
at  least  many  of  them — gone  back  to  their  unregenerate  state. 
How  touchingly  he  addresses  them:  "  Where  is  then  the  blessed- 
ness ye  spoke  of?  for  I  bear  you  record,  that,  if  it  had  been  pos- 
sible, ye  would  have  plucked  out  your  own  eyes,  and  have  given 
them  to  me.  My  little  children,  of  whom  I  travail  in  birth  again 
until  Christ  be  formed  in  you,  I  desire  to  be  present  with  you 
now,  and  to  change  my  voice,  for  I  stand  in  doubt  of  you."  Why 
doubt  if  they  could  not  fall  from  grace  (which  he  says  was  the 
case  with  them),  or,  having  fallen,  could  not  possibly  fail  to  rise 
again,  no  matter  how  deep  they  sunk  into  sin,  or  how  long  they 
wallowed  in  it!  The  expostulations  of  this  Epistle  call  to  mind 
those  of  the  Prophet  Hosea.  How  tenderly,  pathetically,  jjow- 
erfully  does  God  address  himself  to  his  backsliding  people: 
**Ephraim  is  joined. to  idols;  let  him  alone."  This  is  addressed 
to  Judah,  to  keep  him  from  going  into  the  worship  of  false  gods, 
as  Ephraim  had  done.      O  Ephraim,  what  shall  I  do  unto  thee? 

0  Judah,  what  shall  I  do  unto  thee  ?  for  your  goodness  is  as  a 
morning  cloud,  and  as  the  early  dew  it  goeth  away.    How  shall 

1  give  thee  up  Ephraim?  O  Israel,  return  unto  the  Lord  thy 
God,  for  thou  hast  fallen  by  thine  iniquity."  And  so  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end. 

All  these  expostulations — for  what?  If  they  could  not  fall, 
then  they  were  not  fallen.  If  fallen  and  yet  could  not  be  lost, 
then  they  must  rise,  and  would  rise  without  all  this  ado. 


Tlie  Dogma  of  Iiiamissible  Grace  Be/idcd. 


189 


§7.  Amissibility  Implied  in  the  Warnings  Against 
Apostasy. 

The  amissibility  of  grace  is  implied  in  the  warnings  against 
apostasy,  with  which  the  Scriptures  abound.  Many  of  these 
warnings  have  been  already  noticed  under  the  preceding  heads. 
How  pregnantly  does  Christ  repeat  the  warning  concerning  the 
salt  losing  its  savor:  "Salt  is  good:  but  if  the  salt  have  lost  his 
savor,  Avherewith  shall  it  be  seasoned?  It  is  neither  fit  for  the 
land,  nor  for  the  dunghill;  but  men  cast  it  out.  He  that  hath 
ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear."  (Luke  xiv.  34,  35;  cf.  Matt.  v.  13; 
Mark  ix.  50.) 

See  how  the  apostle  warns  the  Gentiles,  who,  like  wild  olive- 
branches,  had  been  grafted  into  the  good  olive  tree,  in  place  of 
the  Jews,  the  natural  branches:  *' Because  of  unbelief  they  were 
broken  off,  and  thou  standest  by  faith.  Be  not  highminded,  but 
fear:  for  if  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take  heed  lest 
he  also  spare  not  thee.  Behold  therefore  the  goodness  and  se- 
verity of  God:  on  them  which  fell,  severity;  but  toward  thee, 
goodness,  if  thou  continue  in  his  goodness;  otherwise  thou  also 
shalt  be  cut  off."  (Rom.  xi.  20-23.)  Does  that  mean  nothing? 
Is  that  a  warning  against  an  impossibility? 

Read  1  Cor.  x.  1-12.  Here  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  "  fathers  " 
as  baptized  into  the  covenant  of  Moses,  and  sharing  in  all  its 
blessings.  "But  with  many  of  them  God  was  not  well  pleased; 
for  they  were  overthrown  in  the  wilderness.  Now  these  things 
were  our  examples,  to  the  intent  we  should  not  lust  after  evil 
things,  as  they  also  lusted.  Neither  be  ye  idolaters;  neither  let 
us  commit  fornication;  neither  let  us  tempt  Christ;  neither 
murmur  ye,  as  some  of  them  also  murmured,  and  were  destroyed 
of  the  destroyer.  Now  all  these  things  happened  unto  thepa  for 
ensamples;  and  they  are  written  for  our  admonition  upon  whom 
the  ends  of  the  world  are  come.  Wherefore,  let  him  that  think- 
eth  he  standeth  take  heed  lest  he  fall."  Why  this  admonition? 
Avhy  adduce  all  these  "  examples  "  (ru-or),  types,  if  there  was  no 
danger  of  our  imitating  them?  Why  admonish  us  to  stand,  and 
to  take  heed  lest  we  fall,  if  we  cannot  help  standing,  if  we  can- 
not fall?  And  why  warn  us  against  falling  after  the  example  of 
those  who  fall  to  rise  no  more,  if  there  were  no  danger,  no  pos- 
sibility of  our  so  doing? 

In  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  we  have  seen,  the  apostle 


190  Sin  After  Justification. 

reverts  to  the  same  melancholy  examples  of  final  apostasy,  and 
warns  the  Christians  against  their  imitation.  These  warnings 
are  repeated  in  that  Epistle  with  the  utmost  earnestness  and 
vehemence.  "  Cast  not  away  therefore  your  confidence,"  says  he, 
"which  hath  great  recompense  of  reward.  For  ye  have  need  of 
patience,  that  after  ye  have  done  the  will  of  God,  ye  might  re- 
ceive the  promise."  "  Now  the  just  shall  live  by  faith ;  but  if  any 
man  draw  back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in  him.  But  we 
are  not  of  them  who  draw  back  unto  perdition;  but  of  them  that 
believe  to  the  saving  of  the  soul."  (Heb.  x.  35-39.)  The  thirty- 
eighth  verse  ought  to  have  been  simply  rendered :  "  But  if  he  shall 
draw  back,"  namely,  the  just  man  who  lives  by  faith.  We  are 
disinclined  to  charge  the  translators  v*  ith  Calvinistic  leanings  in 
their  translation,  though  it  is  difficult  to  free  them  from  fliat 
charge  in  this  place  and  in  Heb.  vi.  6:  "If  they  shall  fall  away  " 
for  "And  fall  away."  The  passage  shows  clearly  that  the  just 
man  who  then  lived  by  his  faith  might  cast  away  his  shield  and 
draw  back  from  the  field;  and  the  apostle  speaks  of  some  who  did 
thus  draw  back  even  to  perdition,  though  he  hoped  that  those 
whom  he  addressed  would  not  prove  to  be  of  that  number,  but  of 
those  who  continue  to  believe  to  the  saving  of  the  soul.  His 
reason  for  that  hope  is  given  in  the  sixth  chapter:  no  fancied 
decrees  of  predestination,  no  dream  about  the  inamissibility  of 
grace;  but  their  continued  obedience,  which  he  desired  that  they 
should  show  "with  diligence  to  the  full  assurance  of  hope  unto 
the  end:  that  ye  be  not  slothful,  but  followers  of  them  who 
through  faith  and  patience  inherit  the  promises."  Can  language 
be  more  explicit?  Can  warnings  be  more  earnest  or  indicate 
more  danger? 

Then  listen  to  the  warnings  given  by  Christ  from  the  throne 
of  his  glory  to  the  Seven  Apocalyptic  Churches.  He  says  all 
the  good  he  can  of  them,  but  hear  him  to  the  Church  of  Ephe- 
sus:  "  Nevertheless,  I  have  somewhat  against  thee,  because  thou 
has  left  thy  first  love.  Remember  therefore  from  whence  thou 
art  fallen,  and  repent,  and  do  the  first  works;  or  else  I  will  come 
unto  thee  quickly,  and  will  remove  thy  candlestick  out  of  his 
place,  except  thou  repent."  So  he  had  a  few  things  against  the 
Church  in  Pergamos,  and  warns  them  accordingly:  "Repent, 
or  else  I  will  come  unto  thee  quickly,  and  I  will  fight  against 
them  with  the  sword  of  my  mouth."    So  to  the  Church  at  Sardis 


The  Dogma  of  Inamisslble  Grace  Befiited. 


191 


and  at  Laodicea,  whom  he  threatened  with  vengeance  if  they 
did  not  rex^ent,  and  to  spew  them  out  of  his  mouth,  if  they  con- 
tinued in  their  lukewarm  or  backslidden  state.  AVhat  was  the 
design  of  these  warnings?  To  excite  them  to  fear  where  no  fear 
was?  to  operate  irresistibly  to  secure  the  end  desired?  AVe  defy 
any  man  to  show  where  this  was  ever  God's  design  in  warning 
men  from  apostasy  and  ruin;  and  whether  or  not  it  was  so  in  this 
case  let  the  result  show.  That  these  things,  too,  were  written 
for  our  admonition  there  can  be  no  doubt,  for  every  Epistle 
closes  with  this  ^o\em\\  fi)i ale :  "He  that  hath  ears  to  hear,  let 
him  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the  Churches  "    (Eev.  ii.; 

iii-) 

See  how  earnestly  Paul  warns  the  Corinthians:  "  AVould  to 
God  ye  would  bear  with  me  a  little  in  my  folly;  and  indeed  bear 
with  me.  For  I  am  jealous  over  you  with  a  godly  jealousy."  But 
I  fear  lest  by  any  means  as  the  serpent  beguiled  Eve  through  his 
subtilty,  so  your  minds  should  be  corrupted  from  the  simplicity 
that  is  in  Christ."  (  2  Cor.  xi.  1-3.)  "We  know  how  Eve  was  de- 
ceived; we  know  how  through  her  Adam  fell,  and  so,  says  the 
apostle,  I  warn  you  not  to  be  so  ensnared  by  Satan's  devices. 
(C/.  2  Cor.  xii.  19-21.) 

So  Peter  warns  us  against  the  enemy  when  he  comes  in  an- 
other manner;  "Be  sober,  be  vigilant;  because  your  adversary 
the  devil,  as  a  roaring  lion,  walketh  about,  seeking  whom  he 
may  devour;  whom  resist  steadfast  in  the  faith."    (1  Peter  v.  8, 9.) 

But  enough,  though  there  is  no  end  to  such  warnings — while 
every  one  of  them,  even  the  least,  would  be  an  impertinence  if 
the  grace  of  God  were  inamissible. 

§  8.  Amissibility  Implied  in  the  Rewards  Promised  to  Per- 
severance. 

The  inamissibility  of  grace  is  implied  in  the  promises  of  re- 
ward if  we  persevere  to  the  end.  This  is  the  tenor  of  them  all:- 
"  He  that  shall  endure  unto  the  end,  the  same  shall  be  saved." 
(Matt.  xxiv.  13. )  "  Then  said  Jesus  to  those  Jews  which  believed 
on  him,  If  ye  continue  in  my  word,  then  are  ye  my  disciples  in- 
deed; and  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make  you 
free."  (John  viii.  31,  32.)  *' Brethren,  if  any  of  you  do  err  from 
the  truth,  and  one  convert  him;  let  him  know,  that  he  which  con- 
verteth  the  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way  shall  save  a  soul  from 


192 


Sin  After  Justification. 


death,  and  shall  hide  a  multitude  of  sins."  (James  v.  19,  20.) 
"Be  thou  faithful  unto  death,  and  I  will  give  thee  a  crown  of 
life."  (Rev.  ii.  10.)  "  Whereby  are  given  unto  us  exceeding  great 
and  precious  promises,  that  by  these  ye  might  be  partakers  of 
the  divine  nature,  having  escaped  the  corruption  that  is  in  the 
world  through  lust  And  besides  this,  giving  all  diligence,  add 
to  your  failli  virtue;  and  to  virtue,  knowledge;  and  to  knowledge, 
temperance;  and  to  temperance,  patience;  and  to  patience,  godli- 
ness; and  to  godliness,  brotherly  kindness;  and  to  brotherly 
kindness,  charity.  For  if  these  things  be  in  you,  and  abound, 
they  make  you  that  ye  shall  neither  be  barren  nor  unfruitful  in 
the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  But  he  that  lacketh 
these  things  is  blind,  and  cannot  see  afar  off,  and  hath  forgotten 
that  he  has  been  purged  from  his  old  sins.  Wherefore  the  rather, 
brethren,  give  diligence  to  make  your  calling  and  election  sure; 
for  if  ye  do  these  things  ye  shall  never  fall:  for  so  an  entrance 
shall  be  ministered  unto  you  abundantly  into  the  everlasting 
kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  (2  Pet.  i.  4-11. ) 
If  there  were  not  another  syllable  on  the  subject  in  holy  writ,  this 
pregnant  passage  would  settle  the  question.  There  is  no  tortur- 
ing it  into  any  thing  else.  It  makes  no  sense  at  all,  if  grace  be 
inamissible.  Here  are  some,  with  whom  the  faithful  are  con- 
trasted, who  had  forgotten  that  they  were  purged  from  their  old 
sins,  that  is,  they  had  so  far  relapsed  into  their  state  before  con- 
version that  their  Christian  state  was  passed  over  as  a  parenthe- 
sis scarcely  to  be  noticed.  But  tlie  "  brethren  " — tJie  only  place 
in  the  Epistle  where  they  are  so  addressed — are  encouraged  to 
hold  on  to  their  religion  and  be  faithful  to  the  end,  by  the  prom- 
ise of  a  glorious  triumph — which  is  the  meaning  of  the  entrance 
ministered  abundantly  into  the  everlasting  kingdom:  like  con- 
querers  they  should  drive  in  state  through  the  gates,  enlarged 
for  the  occasion,  into  the  city.  i  Cf.  Eev.  xxii.  14.)  If  they  add 
(that  is,  siipphj,  i-Lyopj^yriaa-t)  what  is  necessary  to  constitute  a 
fully  developed  Christian  character;  God  will  minister  (that  is, 
supphj,  the  same  word,  i-;yopy,y7,0i\ozzai)  which  is  necessary  for 
their  triumph.  These  promises  were  given  to  stimulate  them  to 
final  perseverance,  to  make  their  calling  and  election  sure. 
What  sense  would  there  be  to  encourage  them  to  do  so  by  these 
promises,  if  they  could  not  possibly  fail?  There  are  no  if^  and 
huts  about  it,  no  room  for  promissory  incentives  to  perseverance 


The  Dogma  of  Inamissihle  Grace  Refuted.  193 


any  more  than  for  warnings  from  defection.  If  grace  be  ina- 
missible  the  whole  is  a  grand  impertinence. 

§  9.  Amissibility  Implied  in  the  Prayers  for  Perseverance. 

The  amissibility  of  grace  is  implied  in  the  prayers  for  perse- 
verance, with  whicli  the  Scriptures  abound.  These  prayers  are 
deprecatory,  looking  to  apostasy  as  not  only  possible,  but  certain, 
unless  great  assistance  be  afforded  to  prevent  it;  supplicatory,  ear- 
nestly imploring  persevering  grace;  and  intercessory,  offered  for 
the  perseverance  of  others.  We  can  only  give  a  few  specimens. 
David  prays,  when  penitent  for  his  apostasy:  Create  in  me  a 
clean  heart,  O  God;  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me.  Cast  me 
not  away  from  thy  presence;  and  take  not  thy  Holy  Spirit  from 
me.  Kestore  unto  me  the  joy  of  thy  salvation;  and  uphold  me 
Avith  thy  free  Spirit.' '  (Ps.  li.  10-12.)  "  Uphold  me,  according  unto 
thy  word,  that  I  may  live;  and  let  me  not  be  ashamed  of  my  hope. 
Hold  tiiou  me  up,  and  I  shall  be  safe:  and  I  will  have  respect 
unto  thy  statutes  continually."  (Ps.  cxix.  IIG,  117.)  "  Wherefore 
also  we  pray  always  for  you,  that  our  God  would  count  you 
worthy  of  this  calling,  and  fulfill  all  the  good  pleasure  of  his  good- 
ness, and  the  work  of  faith  with  power:  that  the  name  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  may  be  glorified  in  you,  and  ye  in  him,  accord- 
ing to  the  grace  of  our  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (2  Thess. 
i.  11,  12.)  "And  the  Lord  said,  Simon,  Simon,  behold  Satan  hath 
desired  to  have  you,  that  he  may  sift  you  as  wheat:  but  I  have 
prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not:  and  when  thou  art  con- 
verted, strengthen  thy  brethren."  (Luke  xxii.  31,  32.)  "Holy 
Father,  keep  through  thine  own  name  those  whom  thou  hast 
given  me,  that  they  may  be  one,  as  we  are.  I  pray  not  that 
thou  sliouldst  take  them  out  of  the  world,  but  that  thou  shouldst 
keep  them  from  the  evil."    (John  xvii.  11-15.) 

AVe  need  hardly  say  that  neither  our  own  prayers  for  ourselves, 
nor  the  intercessory  prayers  of  others  for  us,  including  those  of 
our  great  Advocate  and  High-priest,  will  keep  us  from  falling, 
and  secure  our  final  perseverance,  without  our  voluntary  concur- 
rence with  the  gracious  influence  brought  to  bear  upon  us  in 
answer  to  prayer.  If  this  principle  be  not  admitted,  then  no  sin- 
ner could  ever  continue  a  moment  in  sin,  and  no  saint  could  ever 
fall.  In  default  of  this,  many  prayers  return  to  the  bosom  of 
those  who  offer  them ;  they  are  not  offered  in  vain,  though  they 
13  Vol.  II. 


194 


Sin  After  Justification. 


fail  to  effect  the  result  intended.  But  it  would  be  preposterous 
to  pray  for  a  thing  in  itself  impossible,  or  for  a  thing  absolutely 
inevitable. 

§  10.  Amissibility  Demonstrated  by  Scriptural  Examples  of 

Apostasy. 

The  amissibility  of  grace  is  demonstrated  by  the  examples  of 
apostasy  recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  to  say  nothing  of  those  that 
come  under  our  personal  observation.  Saul,  the  king  of  Israel, 
was  undoubtedly  a  good  man,  and  was  specially  favored  by 
heaven.  Thus  Samuel  said  to, him:  *'The  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
will  come  upon  thee,  and  thou  slialt  prophesy  with  them  and 
shalt  be  turned  into  another  man.  And  let  it  be,  when  these 
signs  are  come  unto  thee,  that  thou  do  as  occasion  serve  thee; 
for  God  is  with  thee."    (1  Sam.  x.  6,  7.) 

But  Saul  fell  from  grace.  ''And  when  Saul  inquired  of  the 
Lord,  the  Lord  answered  him  not."  And  Samuel  told  him: 
"The  Lord  is  departed  from  thee,  and  is  become  thine  enemy," 
as  he  was  before  with  him  and  was  his  friend.  The  result  is 
known.  He  was  overcome  by  his  enemies.  "Therefore  Saul 
took  a  sword  and  fell  upon  it.  So  Saul  died."  (1  Sam.  xxviii.; 
xxxi.)    Comment  is  unnecessary.    His  fall  was  final. 

David  was  an  eminent  saint.  Yet  David  fell  into  adultery, 
lying,  liypocrisy,  and  murder,  of  the  foulest  kind.  His  aposta- 
sy was  total.  He  seemed  to  be  in  a  state  of  utter  hardness  and 
impenitency  for  a  twelvemonth,  when  he  was  aroused  to  a  sense 
of  his  dreadful  condition,  and  the  fifty-first  Psalm  is  a  record  of 
his  bitter  repentance:  "Make  me  to  hear  joy  and  gladness;  that 
the  bones  which  thou  hast  broken  may  rejoice.  Hide  thy  face 
from  my  sins,  and  blot  out  all  my  iniquities.  Create  in  me  a 
clean  heart,  O  God;  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me."  If  he 
had  died  during  that  appalling  period  of  his  liistory  he  would 
have  been  damned  like  any  other  adulterer  and  murderer,  and 
would  have  had  his  portion  with  hypocrites  and  liars:  we  know 
what  that  is. 

Then  there  was  his  son  Solomon,  named  also  Jedidiah,  that 
is,  "  Beloved  of  the  Lord."  (1  Sam.  xii.  24,  25.)  "And  Solomon 
loved  the  Lord,  walking  in  the  statutes  of  David,  his  father." 
(1  Kings  iii.)  It  is  needless  to  descant  upon  his  excellent  piety, 
his  superlative  wisdom,  his  divine  inspiration.    He  was  high 


The  Dogma  of  Inamissihle  Grace  Refuted. 


195 


in  the  favor  of  God.  But  see  how  he  fell.  Look  at  him  with 
his  thousand  idolatrous  wives  and  concubines,  building  altars 
for  their  outlandish  gods,  and'  bovring  down  and  worshiping 
them;  oppressing  his  subjects,  and  bringing  down  upon  his 
hoary  head  the  curses  of  God  and  man.  His  fall  w^as  total; 
whether  it  was  final  no  man  can  tell.  We  know  what  he  him- 
self said:  "He,  that  being  often  reproved  hardenetli  his  neck, 
shall  suddenly  be  destroyed,  and  that  without  remedy."  "The 
backslider  in  heart  shall  be  filled  with  his  own  ways."  (Prov. 
xxix.  1.) 

Judas  was  once  a  good  man:  as  far  as  appears  from  the  his- 
tory, on  a  par  Avith  the  other  apostles.  He  was  called  by  Christ 
to  the  apostolate;  he  was  endowed  with  miraculous  powers;  he 
was  admitted  into  the  society  of  Christ  and  his  cliosen  disciples, 
and  shared  his  most  intimate  friendship.  Yet  Judas  proved  a 
traitor.  Satan  entered  into  him,  and  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver 
*  he  betrayed  his  Lord.  The  Saviour  speaks  of  him  as  lost: 
"  Those  that  thou  gavest  me  I  have  kept,  and  none  of  them  is 
lost,  but  the  son  of  perdition."  (John  xvii.  12.)  What  a  loss! 
What  a  fall!  Thus  Peter  and  the  other  apostles  and  disciples 
speak  of  him  as  falling  from  this  ministry  and  apostleship  by 
transgression,  that  he  might  go — or  so  that  he  went — to  his  own 
place.  (Acts  i.  25.)  How  sad  is  the  record  of  his  apostasy, 
which  was  both  total  and  final:  "Then  Judas  which  had  be- 
trayed him,  when  he  saw  that  he  was  condemned,  repented  him- 
self, and  brought  again  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  to  the  chief 
priests  and  elders,  saying,  I  have  sinned  in  that  I  have  betrayed 
the  innocent  bh^od.  And  they  said.  What  is  that  to  us?  see  thou 
•to  that.  And  he  cast  down  the  pieces  of  silver  in  the  temple, 
and  departed,  and  went  and  hanged  himself."    (Matt,  xxvii.  3-5.) 

Then  there  was  Peter.  Surely  he  was  an  apostate;  for  he  de- 
nied his  Lord  with  bitter  imprecations.  Whether,  as  casuists 
dispute,  his  sin  was  one  of  infirmity  or  of  presumption,  all 
admit  it  was  not  a  sin  of  ignorance.  Peter  sinned  against  the 
clearest  light,  the  richest  love,  the  highest  professions,  and  the 
most  timely  warnings.  The  turpitude  of  his  sin  is  seen  in  the 
intensity  of  his  repentance:  Peter  wept  bitterly.  His  triple  de- 
nial calls  for  a  triple  attestation  of  his  love  when  "  restored  by 
reconciling  grace."  His  fall,  if  total,  was  not  final,  as  he  soon 
repented  of  his  foul  revolt. 


196 


Sin  After  Justification. 


From  his  bitter  experience  Peter  was  prepared  to  warn  Chris- 
tians against  apostasy.  He  speaks  of  some  who  had  known  the 
way  of  righteousness,  and  turned  from  it:  whose  latter  end  was 
worse  than  the  beginning,  as  they  had  returned  to  their  vomit 
and  to  their  Avallowing  in  the  mire  of  their  unregenerate  state; 
so  that  it  would  have  been  better  for  them  not  to  "have  known 
the  way  of  righteousness.  If  this  is  not  a  total  and  a  final  re- 
volt we  know  not  what  can  be. 

Paul  says  explicitly  of  the  Galatians  that  they  had  "fallen 
from  grace."  We  have  no  assurance  that  they  were  recovered 
from  their  fall;  but  if  they  were,  it  was  by  the  same  repentance, 
faith,  and  regeneration  by  which  they  were  first  put  into  a  state 
of  grace. 

The  immoral  Corinthian  whom  the  apostle  excluded  from  the 
Church  because  of  his  vile  conduct,  would  have  been  lost  for- 
ever if  he  had  not  bitterly  repented  of  his  sin  and  been  restored 
by  renewing  grace. 

In  1  Tim.  i.  19,  20  Paul  speaks  of  Hymeneus  and  Alex- 
ander, who  concerning  faith  had  made  shipwreck  (and  everybody 
knows  what  shipwreck  means  j,  and  had  put  away  both  faith  and 
a  good  conscience.  Surely  it  will  not  be  disputed  that  they 
had  fallen  from  grace  totally.  AVhether  their  fall  was  final  we 
cannot  tell.  Paul  says  he  "delivered  them  unto  Satan  that 
they  might  learn  not  to  blaspheme,"  that  is,  he  cast  them  out 
of  the  Church,  that  by  this  censure  they  might  learn  the  enor- 
mity of  their  offense  and  be  brought  to  repentance.  AYhether 
they  repented  we  cannot  tell.  In  the  Second  Epistle  to  Tim- 
othy (ii.  17,  18 j  Paul  says  that  Hymeneus  and  Philetus  erred 
concerning  the  truth,  saying 'that  the  resurrection  is  past  al- 
ready and  overthrowing  the  faith  of  some.  "Alexander  the 
coppersmith  did  me  much  evil:  the  Lord  reward  him  according 
to  his  works:  of  whom  be  thou  ware  also;  for  he  hath  greatly 
withstood  our  words."  (2  Tim.  iv.  14,  15.)  Surely  this  was  a 
shipwreck  of  the  faith,  total  and,  we  should  think,  final  also. 

"We  need  scarcely  revert  to  the  Hebrew  apostates  spoken  of 
in  Heb.  vi.  4-6.  Paul  says  expressly  that  men  who  were  saints 
of  no  ordinary  attainments  "fell  away" — which  is  the  literal 
rendering  of  the  aorist,  which  our  translators  unfortunately  ren- 
der "if  they  shall  fall  away."  This  rendering  is  deeply  to  be 
regretted,  as  it  is  very  difficult  to  conceive  how  it  could  be  made 


The  Dogma  of  Inamissihle  Grace  Beftdecl. 


197 


without  a  dogmatic  bias.    Macknight,  who  was  a  professed  Cal- 
viiiist,  says: 

The  verbs  (pcoTicdei^rag^  yevaa[xhovQ,  and  yevrjOhra^^  being  aorists,  are  riglitlv  ren-  . 
dered  by  our  translators  in  the  past  time — who  were  enlightened,  have  tasted,  were  made 
partakers.  Wherefore  TvapaTreGovraq,  being  an  aorist,  ought  likewise  to  have  been 
translated  in  the  past  time,  have  fallen  aivay.  Nevertheless  our  translators,  follow- 
ing Beza,  who  without  any  authority  from  ancient  MSS.  hath  inserted  in  his  ver- 
sion tlie  word.  Si,  If,  have  rendered  this  clause,  If  they  fell  away,  that  this  text 
might  not  appear  to  contradict  the  doctrine  of  the  jjerseverance  of  the  saints.  But 
as  no  translator  should  take  upon  him  to  add  to,  or  alter  the  Scriptures,  for  thos 
sake  of  any  favorite  doctrine,  I  have  translated  TrapaireadvTag  in  the  past  tense,  have 
fallen  away,  according  to  the  true  import  of  the  word  as  standing  in  connection  with 
the  other  aorists  in  the  preceding  verses.  Further,  as  TrapaTreadvTvg  is  put  in  op- 
position to  wliat  goes  before  in  the  fourth  and  fiftli  verses,  the  conjunction  /ca/,  with 
which  it  is  introduced,  must  have  here  its  adversative  signification — and  yet  have 
fallen  away. 

Wall,  ill  liis  note  on  this  verse,  says : 

I  know  of  none  but  Beza  whom  the  Englisli  translators  could  follow.  The 
Vulgate  hatli,  ct  prolapsi  sunt;  the  Syriac,  qui  rursum  peccaverunt ;  Castalio,  ct  tam- 
en  relabuntur.  The  word  TrapnTzeaovrag  literally  signifies  have  fallen  down.  But  it 
is  rightly  translated  have  fallen  away,  because  the  apostle  is  speaking  not  of  any 
common  lapse,  but  of  apostasy  from  the  Christian  faith.  See  Heb.  x.  29,  where  a 
further  display  of  the  evil  of  apostasy  is  made. 

This  is  judicious.  It  might  be  better,  perhaps,  to  render  the 
aorist  as  Eotherham  renders  it,  "and  who  fell  away,"  which 
makes  it  more  distinctively  refer  to  actual  apostasy.  The  per- 
sons in  question  were  w^ell  known  as  apostates  from  the  faith, 
and  are  spoken  of  accordingly.  Their  fall  was  total  and  it 
would  seem  final  also,  as  was  that  of  some  of  the  other  apos- 
tates named. 

§11.  Amissibility  Inculcated  in  Parables  of  our  Lord, 

The  amissibility  of  grace  is  inculcated  in  several  of  our  Lord's 
parables.  In  the  parable  of  the  sower  this  doctrine  is  clearly 
exhibited.  There  are  four  descriptions  of  ground  cultivated. 
The  sower  is  one ;  the  seed  is  the  same  in  all  cases.  The  inten- 
tion of  the  husbandman  is  the  same:  he  sows  in  order  to  get  a 
crop.  In  one  case  the  seed  takes  no  root;  in  another  case  it 
brings  forth  a  harvest;  but  in  two  intermediate  cases  it  takes 
root  and  grows,  but  fails  to  come  to  perfection;  and  in  both 
these  cases  the  fault  is  entirely  in  the  soil.  Thorns  and  stones 
occasion  the  failure. 

Now,  we  must  not  make  the  parable  run  on  all  fours.    It  w^as 


198 


Sin  After  Justification. 


not  within  its  province  to  set  forth  the  operation  of  preventing 
grace,  necessary  in  every  case  to  prepare  the  soil  for  the  recep- 
tion and  development  of  the  seed.  The  wayside  hearer  might 
have  improved  that  grace  so  as  to  have  profited  by  the  word. 
The  stony-ground  and  thorny-ground  hearers  might  have  so 
improved  that  grace  as  to  bring  forth  fruit  to  perfection,  as  did 
those  who  are  represented  by  the  good  ground — made  good  by  * 
that  same  grace  duly  improved.  They  began  well,  but  fell  from 
^ace,  and  proved  as  fruitless  in  the  end  as  those  who  never 
used  the  grace  at  all. 

The  parable  of  the  vine  and  its  branches  teaches  the  same 
lesson:  "I  am  the  true  vine,  and  my  Father  is  the  husbandman. 
Every  branch  in  me  that  bearethnot  fruit  he  taketh  away."  "If 
a  man  abide  not  in  me,  he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is  with- 
ered; and  men  gather  them,  and  cast  them  into  the  fire,  and 
they  are  burned.  If  ye  abide  in  me,  and  my  words  abide  in 
you,  ye  shall  ask  what  ye  will,  and  it  shall  be  done  unto  you. 
Herein  is  my  Father  glorified,  that  ye  bear  much  fruit;  so  shall 
ye  be  my  disciples.  As  the  Father  hath  loved  me,  so  have  I 
loved  you:  continue  ye  in  my  love."  (John  xv.  1-9.)  As  no 
torturing  can  set  aside  this  testimony,  so  no  comment  is  needed 
to  explain  it.  All  the  branches  were  in  the  vine:  they  belonged  » 
to  it.  Some  ceased  to  imbibe  the  sap  from  the  trunk,  ceased  to 
be  fruitful,  ceased  to  live;  they  are  cut  off  from  the  vine;  they 
are  burned  in  the  fire.  If  this  is  not  total  and  final  apostasy, 
what  is  it?  and  what  is  total  and  final  apostasy?  And  if  this 
is  not  the  teaching  of  the  parable,  what  does  it  teach?  If  the 
disciples  to  whom  the  parable  was  addressed  were  not  liable  to 
become  barren  and  unfruitful,  w:hy  address  the  parable  to  them? 
If  they  could  not  fail  to  continue  in  the  Saviour's  love,  why  set 
forth  this  parable  to  show  the  fearful  consequences  of  a  failure 
so  to  do?  Why  tell  them,  "  If  ye  keep  my  commandments,  ye 
shall  abide  in  my  love?"  They  would  abide  in  his  love  in  any 
case,  they  could  not  get  out  of  it,  if  grace  be  inamissible.  Once 
in  the  vine,  never  out  of  it;  once  in  grace,  always  in  grace! 

But  if  there  were  nothing  else  in  the  Scriptures  touching  this 
subject  ljut  the  parable  of  the  unmerciful  servant,  that  would  set- 
tle the  question  beyond  controversy.  A  servant  owed  his  lord 
ten  thousand  talents;  he  could  not  pay  the  debt;  ho  asked  to-have 
it  remitted,  and  it  was  forgiven.    His  fellow-servant  owed  him 


The  Dogma  of  Inamissihh  Grace  Refuted,  199 

a  hundred  pence.  He  inexorably  demanded  payment;  where- 
upon his  lord  said  to  him:  "O  thou  wicked  servant,  I  forgave 
thee  all  that  debt,  because  thou  desiredst  me:  shouldest  not  thou 
also  have  had  compassion  on  thy  fellow-servant,  even  as  I  had 
pity  on  thee?  And  his  lord  was  wroth,  and  delivered  him  to  the 
tormentors,  till  he  should  pay  all  that  was  due  unto  him."  Sup- 
pose the  moral  of  this  parable  had  not  been  given  by  the  Sav- 
iour, could  any  man  have  been  at  a  loss  for  the  application? 
We  hazard  nothing  in  saying  that  no  man  could  miss  the  mean- 
ing and  design  of  the  parable,  unless  warped  by  dogmatic  prej- 
udice. But  our  Lord  gives  us  the  moral;  he  delivers  the  lesson: 
"So  likewise  shall  my  heavenly  Father  do  also  unto  you,  if  ye 
from  your  hearts  forgive  not  every  one  his  brother  their  tres- 
passes." (Matt,  xviii.  23-35.)  Do  what?  to  whom?  The  an- 
swers to  these  questions  settle  the  controvers}'. 

§  12.  Amissibility  Shown  by  the  Weakness  of  Arguments 
to  the  Contrary. 

The  amissibility  of  grace  is  shown  by  the  weakness  of  the  ar- 
guments advanced  against  it. 

(1)  It  is  said  that  this  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  the  divine 
perfections.    Mr.  Buck  says  : 

God,  as  a  being  possessed  of  infinite  love,  faitlifulness,  wisdom,  and  power,  can 
liardly  be  supposed  to  suffer  any  of  his  people  finally  to  fall  into  perdition.  TJiis 
would  be  a  reflection  on  his  attributes,  and  argue  him  to  be  worse  than  a  com- 
mon father.  His  love  to  his  people  is  unchangeable,  and  therefore  they  cannot  be 
the  objects  of  it  at  one  time,  and  not  at  another.  His  faithfulness  to  them  and  to 
liis  promise  is  not  founded  on  their  merit,  but  on  his  own  will  and  goodness.  This 
therefore  cannot  be  violated.  His  wisdom  foresees  every  obstacle  in  the  way,  and  is 
capable  of  removing  it  and  of  directing  them  in  the  right  path.  It  would  be  a 
reflection  on  his  wisdom,  after  choosing  a  right  end,  not  to  choose  right  means  in 
accomplishing  the  saijie.  Wis  jjoiver  is  insuperable,  and  is  absolutely  and  perpet- 
ually displayed  in  their  preservation  and  protection." 

And  this  is  argument!  By  just  such  logic  Antinomianism  and 
Universalism  are  defended.  On  the  same  premises  Mill  and 
others  sustain  Dualism  or  Atheism,  as  the  evils  that  are  in  the 
world  are  inconsistent  with  these  perfections,  so  that  there  must 
be  a  good  God  and  a  bad  one,  or  none  at  all!  Angels  never  fell. 
Adam  and  Eve  never  fell.  How  could  they  fall  unless  God 
wanted  them  to  fall?  and  how  could  he  want  them  to  fall  if  he 
hates  sin  and  loves  holiness?  But  it  is  useless  to  expose  such 
sophistry.    It  is  not  inconsistent  with  God's  perfections  to  create 


200  Sin  After  Justification. 


moral  intelligences,  and  to  govern  them  as  such.  While  they 
conform  to  his  will  he  will  smile  upon  them;  but  if  they  rebel 
against  his  authority  he  will  turn  to  be  their  enemy.  "Are  not 
my  ways  equal?"  says  Jehovah,  in  referring  to  this  very  princi- 
ple of  his  government,  as  we  have  seen.    (Ezek.  xviii.) 

(2)  But  Calvinists  say  Christ  has  engaged  to  save  all  that  have 
been  given  to  him  in  the  covenant  between  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  and  his  honor  is  engaged  to  save  them,  so  that  not  one  of 
them  can  be  lost.    Thus  good  Dr.  Watts: 

Firm  as  the  earth  thy  gospel  stands, 

My  Lord,  my  hope,  my  trust: 
If  I  am  found  in  Jesus'  hands, 

My  soul  can  ne'er  be  lost. 
His  honor  is  engaged  to  save 
The  meanest  of  his  sheep: 
All  that  his  heavenly  Father  gave 

His  hands  securely  keep. 
Kor  death  nor  hell  shall  e'er  remove 

His  favorites  from  his  breast; 
In  the  dear  bosom  of  his  love 
They  must  forever  rest. 

Now  there  never  was  any  covenant  of  this  sort  entered  into 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  The  Father  never  did  stipu- 
late to  give  him  just  so  many  elect  persons — not  one  more,  not 
one  less — as  a  reward  for  his  redeeming  work;  and  the  Son  never 
did  stipulate  to  save  just  so  many,  nolens  volens,  or  by  makinrf 
them  willing  to  be  saved,  in  view  of  this  deposit.  That  is  all  a 
fiction.  Christ  does  indeed  speak  of  certain  persons  who  were 
given  to  him  by  the  Father.  But  who  were  they?  and  what  was 
their  character?  and  what  became  of  them?  They  were  his 
apostles.  Thus  he  says:  "  I  have  manifested  thy  name  unto  the 
men  thou  gavest  me  out  of  the  world:  thine  they  were,  and  thou 
gavest  them  me,  and  they  have  kept  thy  word."  "  While  I  was 
with  them  in  the  world,  I  kept  them  in  thy  name:  those  that 
thou  gavest  me  I  have  kept,  and  none  of  them  is  lost,  but  the  son 
of  perdition;  that  the  scripture  might  be  fulfilled."    (John  xvii.) 

So  then  it  seems  one  of  the  twelve,  given  to  the  Son  by  the 
Father,  was  lost!  Was  the  honor  of  Christ  engaged  to  save  only 
eleven  out  of  the  twelve?  AVould  not  Christ  have  saved  Judas 
as  well  as  John  if  he  had  not  fallen  by  transgression  ?  And  what 
about  Peter?  was  not  the  honor  of  Christ  as  much  engaged  to 
save  him  from  apostasy  as  well  as  to  recover  him  from  it? 


The  Dogma  of  Inamissihle  Grace  Befitted.  201 


Who  does  not  see  that  Christ's  honor  was  not  engaged  to  save 
any  of  the  apostles,  except  as  they  kept  the  word  of  the  Father 
who  gave  them  to  him  ?    And  so  of  all  others.    His  honor  is  en- 
gaged to  save  none  who  reject  his  w^ord,  or  who  refuse  to  believe 
on  him  or  obey  him,  or  who  make  shipwreck  of  faith  and  put 
away  a  good  conscience.    We  "are  kept  by  the  power  of  God 
through  faith  unto  salvation."    (1  Pet.  i.  5.)    Christ  says:  "My 
sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and  they  follow  me:  and 
I  give  unto  them  eternal  life;  and  they  shall  never  perish,  neither 
shall  any  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand."    That  is,  while  they  act 
as  his  sheep,  listen  with  docility  to  his  instructions,  he  will  rec- 
ognize them  as  belonging  to  his  Hock;  and  they  shall  never  be 
destroyed  while  they  remain  under  their  Shepherd's  care;  neither 
robber  nor  wolf  can  seize  them  "while  by  their  Shepherd's  side." 
He  says:  "  My  Father,  which  gave  them  me  is  greater  than  all; 
and  no  man  is  able  to  pluck  them  out  of  my  Father's  hand."  (John 
X.  27-29.)    No  one  has  the  power  to  snatch,  to  seize,  to  carry 
tliem  off  from  under  his  powerful  protection.    But  to  argue  from 
this  (as  Schaff  does  in  Lange's  "Commentary")  that  believers 
cannot  renounce  their  faith  and  perish,  is  unexegetical,  and  con- 
trary to  Scripture  and  fact.    (1  Tim.  i.  19,  20;  Hebrews,  passim.) 
So  the  apostle  asks,  "  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of 
Christ?  shall  tribulation,  or  distress,  or  persecution,  or  famine, 
or  nakedness,  or  peril,  or  sword?  "  and  exclaims,  "  Nay  in  all  these 
things  we  are  more  than  conquerers  through  him  that  loved  us. 
For  I  am  persuaded,  that  neither'death,  nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor 
principalities,  nor  powers,  nor  things  present,  nor  things  to  come, 
nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature,  shall  be  able  to 
separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our 
Lord."    (Eom.  viii.  35-39.)    But  does  he  say  that  sin  cannot 
effect  a  severance?    Does  he  say  that  they  can  sin  no  more? 
Does  he  say  that  they  cannot  make  shipwreck  of  faith?  and  that 
because  of  unbelief  they  cannot  be  broken  off  from  the  good 
olive-tree,  severed  from  the  living  Vine?    He  says  the  contrary 
over  and  over,  as  we  have  seen.    There  is  no  lack  of  power  or 
faithfulness  in  either  the  Father  or  the  Son, 

When  any  turn  from  Zion's  way — 
Alas!  what  numbers  do! 

"Behold,  the  Lord's  hand  is  not  shortened,  that  it  cannot  save; 
neither  his  ear  heavy,  that  it  cannot  hear.    But  your  iniquities 


202 


Sin  After  Justification. 


Lave  sei:>arated  between  you  and  your  God,  and  your  sins  have 
hid  his  face  from  you,  that  he  will  not  hear."    (Isa.  lix.  1,  2.) 

The  promise  of  eternal  life  is  given  to  characters,  not  to  indi- 
viduals arbitrarily  selected,  without  foresight  of  faith  or  good 
works.  The  promise  is  to  the  fruitful  branches,  to  the*  sheep, 
to  believers,  to  saints;  but  if  these  draw  back  His  soul  shall 
have  no  pleasure  in  them.  The  apostle,  with  all  his  assurance 
of  salvation,  knew  very  well  that  it  was  not  to  one  named  Paul 
that  the  promise  was  given,  but  to  a  penitent,  believing,  and 
obedient  follower  of  Christ;  hence  he  says:  "I  keep  under  my 
body,  and  bring  it  into  subjection;  lest  that  by  any  means,  when 
I  have  preached  to  others,  I  myself  should  be  a  castaway."  (1 
Cor.  ix.  27. )  The  immutability  of  God's  nature,  developed  and 
illustrated  in  his  moral  government  of  the  universe,  demands 
the  variation  of  his  conduct  toward  his  subjects  according  to  the 
variations  of  their  conduct  toward  him.  A  thousand  passages 
of  the  character  of  those  adduced  may  be  cited  in  favor  of 
the  inamissibility  of  grace,  but  they  are  all  alike  wide  of  the 
mark.  They  prove  no  such  thing.  They  only  prove  that  eter- 
nal life  is  sure  to  all  Avho  hold  fast  their  profession. 

(3)  But  it  is  argued  that  the  Holy  Sfjirit  can  never  abandon 
any  whom  he  has  renewed  by  his  grace. 

That  is  a  j^etitio  principii.  Prove  this,  and  the  question  is  set- 
tled. But  this  is  the  point  in  controversy,  though  it  seems 
strange  that  there  should  be  any  controversy  about  it.  Why 
might  not  the  Holy  Spirit  forsake  any  whom  he  has  renewed  by 
his  grace?  .He  will  not  forsake  any  who  are  led  by  him,  who 
concur  with  his  gracious  operations.  But  what  if  "they  rebel 
and  vex  his  Holy  S^nrit,  so  that  he  is  turned  to  be  their  enemy? " 
(Isa.  Ixiii.  10.)  AVhat  if  they  "resist  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Acts 
vii.  51),  as  God's  ancient  peoy^le  did?  What  if  they  "grieve 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  by  which  they  were  sealed  to  the  day  of 
redemption,"  as  the  apostle  warned  the  Ephesian  believers  not  to 
do,  thereby  declaring  its  possibility?  (Ejjh.  iv.  30.)  What  if 
they  "  tread  under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  count  the  blood  of 
the  covenant,  wherewith  they  were  sanctified,  an  unholy  thing, 
and  do  despite  unto  the  Sjnrit  of  grace,"  as  the  apostates  did, 
spoken  of  in  Heb.  x.  29?  In  such  cases  as  these  will  the  Holy 
Spirit  continue  to  dwell  in  their  hearts?  Will  the  love  of  God 
be  shed  abroad  in  their  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost?    Will  the 


TJie  Dogma  of  Inamissihle  Grace  Refuted. 


203 


Spirit  bear  witness  with  their  spirits  that  they  are  the  children 
of  God?  Will  they  continue  to  be  sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit 
of  promise,  which  is  the  earnest  of  a  heavenly  inheritance? 
It.  sounds  almost  like  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit  to  say 
such  things.  "  Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of  God,  and 
that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelletli  in  you?  "  But  the  apostle  imme- 
diately adds,  "If  any  man  defile  the  temple  of  God,  him  shall 
God  destroy;  for  the  temple  of  God  is  holy,  which  temj^le  ye 
are."  But  will  the  Holy  Spirit — the  archetyx^e  and  source  of  all 
purity — dwell  in  a  temple  defiled  with  all  pollutions?  Can  he 
dwell  in  it,  when  God  destroys  it?    {Cf  2  Cor.  vi.  16;  Ps.  li.  11. ) 

But  it  is  argued  that  our  Lord  says:  "I  will  pray  the  leather 
and  he  will  give  you  another  Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with 
you  forever."  ( John  xiv.  16. )  What  of  that?  He  only  means 
to  say  that  as  he  was  going  away  from  them  his  personal  pres- 
ence would  be  substituted  by  that  of  the  Paraclete,  who  was  to 
come  into  the  world  to  remain  with  the  Church  to  the  end  of 
time.  This  passage  is  therefore  utterly  irrelevant.  The  Holy 
Spirit  is  always  in  the  Church;  but  individual  members  have 
his  presence  with  them  so  long  as  they  yield  themselves  up  to 
his  gracious  influence,  and  no  longer  than  that.  Christ  says: 
"  If  ye  shall  keep  my  commandments,  ye  shall  abide  in  my  love," 
and  the  Spirit  is  held  by  the  same  tenure.  "If  a  man  love 
me,  he  will  keep  my  words  and  my  Father  will  love  him^  and  we 
will  come  unto  him  and  will  direll  with  him."  (John  xiv.  23; 
XV.  10.)  Thus  "the  whole  Trinity  descends  into  our  faithful 
hearts."  But  will  not  there  abide  if  they  prove  unfaithful.  In 
many  places  we  are  assured  that  God  is  faithful,  God  will  not 
leave  us  nor  forsake  us;  he  will  fulfill  in  us  all  the  good  pleas- 
ure of  his  goodness  and  the  work  of  faith  with  power;  he  will 
preserve  us  blameless  unto  the  coming  of  oar  Lord  Jesus 
Christ;  faithful  is  he  that  calleth  you,-  who  will  do  it.  But  all 
this  is  conditioned  upon  our  faithfulness.  God  forsakes  none 
but  those  who  forsake  him.  But  we  read:  "  If  thou  forsake  him, 
he  will  cast  thee  off  forever." 

AYe  frequently  hear— or  at  least  we  used  to  hear,  as  we  do  not 
hear  it  so  often  in  these  days — that  passage  in  Phil.  i.  6  brought 
forward  with  a  flourish  of  trumpets,  as  if  it  were  the  end  of  con- 
troversy: "Being  confident  of  this  very  thing,  that  he  which 
hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you  will  perform  it  until  the  day  of 


204 


Sin  After  Justification. 


Jesus  Christ."  But  what  does  this  import?  The  apostle  was 
persuaded,  -z-otOtu-^  had  a  good  hope  that  the  Christians  at 
Philippi  would  persevere  in  piety  to  the  end  of  their  lives,  not 
because  he  had  any  certain  revelation  concerning  them  to  that 
effect,  not  because  of  any  unconditional  decree,  or  irresistible, 
inamissible  grace — of  which  he  knew  nothing,  as  indeed  there  is 
no  such  thing  anywhere  spoken  of  in  Scripture.  He  assigns  the 
reason  for  his  persuasion  concerning  them:  ''Even  as  it  is  meet 
f oi*  me  to  think  this  of  you  all " — it  is  proper  that  I  should  enter- 
tain this  hope  concerning  you — "  because  I  have  yoa  in  my  heart; 
inasmuch  as  both  in  my  bonds,  and  m  the  defense  and  confirma- 
tion o{  the  gospel,  ye  all  are  partakers  of  my  grace."  (Verse  7.) 
Their  sincere  piety  and  devotion  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  and  their 
love  to  the  apostle  and  his  love  to  them  warranted  this  expression 
of  confidence  concerning  their  future  course  and  final  salvation. 

He  used  similar  language  in  addressing  the  Hebrew  believers, 
at  the  very  time  he  was  portraying  the  danger  of  apostasy,  and 
warning  them  against  it.  But,  beloved,  we  are  persuaded 
[-t-zi(Tfj.=.Oa — a  similar  word]  better  things  of  you,  and  things  that 
accompany  salvation,  though  we  thus  speak."  But  on  what  w^as 
this  persuasion  founded?  On  the  unconditional  decree  and 
the  inamissibility  of  grace?  Nay,  verily,  it  was  this:  "For  God 
is  not  unrighteous  to  forget  your  work  and  labor  of  love,  which' 
ye  have  showed  toward  his  name,  in  that  ye  have  ministered  to 
the  saints,  and  do  minister.  And  we  desire  that  every  one  of 
you  do  show  the  same  diligence,  to  the  full  assurance  of  hope 
unto  the  end:  that  ye  be  not  slothful,  but  followers  of  them  who 
through  faith  and  patience  inherit  the  promises."  (Heb.  vi.  9- 
12.)  So  in  Heb.  x.  39  he  expresses  a  similar  confidence:  "But 
we  are  not  of  them  who  draw  back  unto  x)erdition ;  but  of  them 
that  believe  to  the  saving  of  the  soul."  Why  does  he  speak  thuf? 
of  them  ?  Simply  because,  while  others  had  apostatized  and  for- 
saken the  society  of  the  Christians,  they  had  hitherto  proved 
faithful  amid  the  persecutions.  He  had  good  reason  to  hope  well 
of  them,  who  had  done  and  suffered  so  much  for  the  cause  of 
Christ.  But  was  he  certain  that  they  would  persevere  to  the 
end?  Far  from  it.  It  was  his  fear  that  they  might  after  all  fall 
away  that  led  him  to  write  this  Epistle,  which  is  made  up  of 
warnings  against  apostasy  and  encouragements  to  perseverance. 
"Cast  not  away  therefore  your  confidence,  which  hath  good  rec- 


TJte  Dogma  of  Inamissible  Grace  Refuted. 


205 


ompense  of  reward.  For  ye  have  need  of  patience,  that  after 
ye  have  done  the  will  of  God,  ye  might  receive  the  promise." 
"Now  the  just  shall  live  by  faith,  but  if  he  draw  back,  my  soul 
shall  have  no  pleasure  in  him."  So  he  writes  to  the  Philippians, 
of  whom  he  had  good  reason  to  hope  well:  "  Work  out  your  own 
salvation  with  fear  and  trembling;  for  it  is  God  which  worketh 
in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure."  "  Only  let 
your  conversation  be  as  it  becometh  the  gospel  of  Christ;  that  ye 
stand  fast  in  one  spirit,  Avith  one  mind  striving  together  for  the 
faith  of  the  gospel."    (Phil.  i.  27;  ii.  12,  13.) 

But  the  great  classical  text  urged  against  the  amissibility  of 
grace  is  1  John  iii.  9:  "  Whosoever  is  born  of  God  doth  not  com- 
mif,  sin;  for  his  seed  remaineth  in  him,  and  he  cannot  sin,  be- 
cause he  is  born  of  God."  The  argument  is  put  into  this  syl- 
logism: He  that  sinneth  not,  neither  can  sin,  cannot  fall  away 
from  his  faith;  Whosoever  is  born  of  God  sinneth  not,  neither 
can  sin;  Therefore  whosoever  is  born  of  God  cannot  fall  away 
from  his  faith.  Very  well,  let  us  try  another  syllogism:  Those 
who  do  not  and  who  cannot  do  the  will  of  God  cannot  be  saved; 
Whosoever  are  the  children  of  the  devil  do  not  and  cannot  do 
the  will  of  God;  Therefore  whosoever  are  the  children  of  the 
devil  cannot  be  saved. 

There  you  have  dualism  with  a  witness.  This  is  what  is  called 
the  two-seed  doctrine:  the  seed  of  God  and  the  seed  of  the  devil. 
Their  numbers  respectively  are  so  definite  that  they  neither  can 
be  added  unto  nor  diminished.  This  ancient  heresy,  received  by 
an  ignorant  sect  of  Antinomians  in  our  own  day,  is  based  upon 
this  construction  of  this  text.  And  where  is  the  flaw  in  the  ar- 
gument? Our  Lord  says:  "A  good  tree  cannot  bring  forth  evil 
fruit;  neither  can  a  corrupt  tree  bring  forth  good  fruit."  (Matt, 
vii.  18.)  But  cannot  a  child  solve  this  riddle?  The  plain  com- 
mon sense  meaning  is  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  a  good 
tree  to  bring  forth  bad  fruit,  and  of  a  corrupt  tree  to  bring  forth 
good  fruit.  So  a  good  man  will  do  good:  he  must  do  good  while 
he  retains  his  goodness;  and  the  contrary  obtains  with  the  wicked. 
(1  John  V.  18.)  This  gives  no  countenance  to  Manichean  du- 
alism, though  the  Manicheans  quoted  it  to  sustain  their  heresy. 
The  metaphor  is  not  to  be  pressed  beyond  the  point  in  hand: 
whether  or  not  good  and  bad  trees  can  change  their  character,  it 
is  certain  good  and  bad  men  can.    (Ezek.  xviii.  26,  27.) 


206 


Sin  After  Justification, 


The  whole  scoi;)e  of  John's  teaching  in  this  Epistle  is  to  keep 
good  men  from  becoming  bad,  and  to  assure  them  that  they 
could  not  he  good  unless  they  did  good.  The  seed  of  the  divine 
nature,  while  it  remained  in  them,  would  develop  itself  in  good 
works,  just  as  the  seed  of  the  diabolic  nature,  while  it  remains  in 
the  children  of  the  devil,  develops  itself  in  the  works  of  the 
devil.  The  boasted  syllogism  falls  to  pieces  when  you  give  the 
passage  the  common  sense  interpretation  agreeing  with  the  con- 
text and  the  whole  scope  of  the  Epistle,  namely,  While  the  chil- 
dren of  God  retain  the  seed  of  grace  within  them  they  cannot  sin, 
any  more  than  the  children  of  the  devil,  while  they  remain  sub- 
ject to  his  influence,  can  work  righteousness.  Eeams  of  paper 
have  been  w-asted  on  this  passage,  whose  very  simplicity  seams 
to  have  confounded  the  critics.  Neither  this  text  nor  any  other, 
in  the  slightest  degree,  intimates  that  the  holiest  man  may  not 
withdraw  from  under  the  gracious  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
so  that  He  may  be  vexed  and  grieved  and  quenched  and  despised, 
and  be  forced  to  ''take  his  everlasting  flight." 

(4)  But  it  is  further  argued  that  those  %vho  are  united  in  the 
fellowship  of  the  saints  can  never  be  totally  or  finally  lost  from 
that  holy  society.  There  are  three  passages  UL*ual]y  adduced  in 
proof  of  this  opinion. 

First,  Acts  ii.  47:  "And  the  Lord  added  to  the  Church  such 
as  should  be  saved."  This  is  frequently  quoted  thus:  "such  as 
should  be  eternally  saved,"  or  words  to  that  effect.  But  omit- 
ting the  words  "to  the  Church,"  as  they  are  not  in  the  best 
MSS.,  the  clause  reads,  literally,  "And  the  Lord  added  those 
being  saved  daily  together."  As  the  Authorized  Version  seems 
to  be  no  rendering  of  the  clause,  and  as  we  do  not  like  to  charge 
the  translators  with  manufacturing  the  rendering  for  dogmatic 
purposes,  it  is  possible  that  they  used  this  phrase,  "such  as 
should  be  saved,"  as  a  clumsy  idiom  for  such  as  should  appear 
to  be  saved — such  as  the  apostles  might  find  complying  with  the 
exhortation  of  verse  40:  "Save  yourselves  from  this  untoward 
generation."  Tohq  tro/^ofdvoo^  is  the  present  i)assive  participle  of 
f7(vXoj — to  save— and  means  simply  "those  being  saved."  These 
were  added  to  the  disciples  by  the  Lord,  by  the  instrumentali- 
ty of  the  apostles,  and  by  the  drawing  of  willing  hearts  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.    It  is  useless  to  add  another  word. 


The  Dogma  of  Inamissihle  Grace  Befated.  207 


The  second  passage  adduced  \^  Acts  xiii.  48:  "And  as  many 
as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life  believed." 

But  we  have  elsewhere  shown  that  the  clause,  literally  ren- 
dered, is:  "And  believed,  as  many  as  were  disposed  to  eternal  life." 
They  were  not  then  ordained  to  eternal  life;  they  were  not  fore- 
ordained to  it.  These  Gentiles  were  brought  to  this  determina- 
tion by  availing  themselves  of  the  aid  of  preventing  grace  and 
the  instructions  and  exhortations  of  the  apostles,  and  the  like. 
Being  thus  disposed  to  eternal  life,  or  determined  on  salvation, 
when  Jesus  was  offered  to  them  as  their  Saviour  they  accepted 
him  with  joy  and  gratitude— "they  were  glad,  and  glorified  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  and  believed."  They  are  thus  placed  in  con- 
trast with  the  contradicting  and  blaspheming  J ews,  who,  though 
they  were  more  favorably  circumstanced  for  salvation  than  the 
Gentiles,  received  the  grace  of  God  in  vain,  and  so  judged 
themselves  unworthy  of  eternal  life.  (Verse  46.)  Men  sometimes 
make  shipwreck  of  faith,  put  away  a  good  conscience,  and  go 
back  to  perdition;  but  were  it  otherwise — were  faith  inamissible, 
so  that  if  any  one  truly  believes  his  final  salvation  is  irrevoca- 
bly determined — this  passage  contains  no  such  doctrine.  We 
need  not  add  that  the  generality  of  critics  of  the  various  con- 
fessions render  it  as  we  have  done,  and  as  Webster  and  Wilkin- 
son, who  appear  to  believe  in  the  inamissibility  of  grace:  "Set 
in  order,  or  disposed  to  everlasting  life — duly  prepared  for  the 
reception  of  the  gospel."  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  falsv. 
rendering  of  the  Vulgate  may  have  led  Augustin  and  his  follow- 
ers of  the  Western  Church  into  the  predestinarian  construction 
of  the  passage,  which  did  not  obtain  in  the  Eastern  Church, 
where  the  original  Greek  was  used.  The  case  of  the  persons  ♦ 
spoken  of  in  this  passage  is  nearly  parallel  Avitli  that  of  the 
perverse  Jews  and  of  the  believers  in  Acts  ii.,  previously  no- 
ticed. 

The  third  passage  adduced  for  the  purpose  in  question  is  1 
John  ii.  19:  "They  went  out  from  us,  but  they  were  not  of  us; 
for  if  they  had  been  of  us,  they  would  no  doubt  have  contin- 
ued with  us:  but  they  went  out,  that  they  might  be  made  mani- 
fest that  they  were  not  all  of  us." 

It  is  astonishing  what  a  flourish  is  made  over  this  passage,  as 
if  it  demonstrated  the  inamissibility  of  grace — that  is,  that  men 
who  were  ever  truly  united  to  the  people  of  God  would  never  leave 


208 


Sin  After  Justification. 


their  society.  And  yet  the  Scriptures,  as  well  as  daily  observa- 
tion, show  that  this  is  constantly  taking  place.  How  often  are 
we  warned  against  the  forsaking  of  the  assembling  of  ourselves 
together,  as  the  manner  of  some  is!  (Heb.  x.  25.)  The  apostle 
had  no  reference  to  that  in  the  passage  before  us.  He  is  warn- 
ing the  brethren— his  "  little  children  "—against  the  deceivers 
and  antichrists,  the  false  teachers  who  had  begun  to  infect  the 
Church.  These  were  the  Docetic  and  Cerinthian  heretics  who 
denied  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ.  (1  John  iv.  1-3;  2  John 
7.)  These  antichrists,  if  they  ever  were  sound  in  the  faith,  as 
they  may  have  been  at  first,  had  lapsed  into  error— the  grievous 
error  of  denying  that  "Christ  had  come  in  the  flesh."  As  a 
matter  of  course,  they  would  continue  no  longer  with  the  true 
ministers  of  Christ;  if  they  had  not  gone  out  from  them  the 
apostle  would  have  cast  them  out  (2  John  7-11);  whereas  if 
they  had  remained  sound  in  the  faith  they  would  doubtless  have 
continued  in  the  communion  of  the  apostle  and  those  who  with 
him  adhered  to  the  truth.  Instead  of  inculcating  the  notion  that 
those  who  are  once  associated  with  the  faithful  in  the  belief  of 
the  truth  can  never  be  perverted  and  seduced  from  their  com- 
munion, this  passage  Avith  the  context  proves  the  very  reverse. 
The  ajjostle  knew  that  the  intellect  can  be  seduced  to  error  as 
well  as  the  affections  to  vice,  hence  his  oft-repeated  and  earnest 
fatherly  warnings  to  his  "  little  children  "  against  those  heretics 
who,  having  been  themselves  decoyed  into  error,  were  sedulously 
and  stealthily  endeavoring  to  decoy  others. 

In  the  foregoing  discussion  we  have  answered  every  argument 
professedly  drawn  from  Scripture  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  amissibility  of  grace. 

§  13.  Flavel's  Four  Grounds  Considered. 
Mr.  Flavel  lays  down  four  grounds  "of  the  saints'  persever- 
ance." 

1.  God's  electing  love,  in  which  they  are  given  to  Christ. 
(John  X.  29.)  We  have  seen  that  there  never  was  any  such 
election — never  such  a  gift. 

2.  The  immortal  nature  of  sanctifying  grace  (John  iv.  14; 
1  John  iii.  9):  that  though  there  "are  declinings  of  grace  in 
the  saints"  (Rev.  ii.  4 j,  yet  grace  cannot  be  totally  or  finally  lost, 
for  the  seed  of  God  remaineth  in  the  sanctified.    We  have  shown 


The  Dogma  of  Immissihle  Grace  BefiitecL 


209 


what  a  begging  of  the  question  this  is,  and  what  a  palpable  con- 
tradiction of  the  Scripture  and  observation. 

3.  The  covenant  of  grace.  ( Jer.  xxxii.  40.)  "And  I  will  make 
an  everlasting  covenant  with  them,  that  I  will  not  turn  away 
from  them,  to  do  them  good;  but  I  will  put  my  fear  in  their 
hearts,  that  they  shall  not  depart  from  me."  But  a  reference  to 
that  chapten  will  show  that  it  refers  to  the  return  of  the  children 
of  Israel  from  captivity,  and  the  renewal  of  the  covenant  which 
was  made  with  their  fathers.  The  design  was  to  make  them  a 
holy  people:  whether  that  design  was  answered  in  all  cases 
let  history  testify.  We  have  shown  that  in  all  God's  covenant 
transactions  with  men  he  engages  to  do  his  part  and  requires 
them  to  do  theirs:  "They  shall  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be  their 
God."    (Verse  38;  cf.  2  Cor.  vi.  14;  vii.  1.) 

4.  Christ's  effectual  intercession.  (Luke  xxii.  32.)  "  But  I 
have  prayed  for  thee  that  thy  faith  fail  not."  This  we  have 
shown  argues  that  there  was  a  iwssibility  of  Peter's  faith  failing, 
while  it  does  not  prove  that  all  are  infallibly  saved  for  whom  the 
Saviour  intercedes.  His  intercession  does  not  override  the  moral 
agency  and  responsibility  of  any  man.  There  is  not  a  sinner  in 
hell  for  whom  the  Saviour  did  not  intercede.  We  are  commanded 
to  pray  for  all  men,  and  all  our  prayers  are  presented  by  our 
Advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous;  so  that 
they  are  in  effect  his  intercessions;  but  are  all  men  saved  in  con- 
sequence? or  does  the  probation  of  a  man  cease  the  moment  he 
is  converted?  It  does  if  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  fall;  he  is 
no  longer  on  trial.  But  do  not  the  Scriptures  everywhere  teach 
that  probation  continues  while  life  lasts?  And  if  so  grace  can- 
not be  inamissible. 

§14.  The  Full  Assurance  of  Hope. 

It  might  be  supposed  that  we  should  notice  the  argument 
sometimes  adduced  for  the  inamissibility  of  grace,  that  it  is  so 
comforting  a  doctrine.  It  affords  so  much  joy  to  have  the  full 
assurance  of  our  final  salvation. 

We  answer  that  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  argument. 
And  if  it  were  so  that  the  doctrine  is  adapted  to  afford  comfort, 
we  might  reply  that  Universalists  say  the  same  thing  in  regard 
to  their  doctrine  of  universal  salvation,  and  that  papists  affirm  the 
same  of  their  priestly  pardons,  indulgences,  etc.  There  may  be 
false  as  well  as  true  grounds  of  comfort.  But  the  assurance  of 
14  Vol.  II. 


210 


Sin  After  Justification. 


salvation  spoken  of  in  the  Scripture,  so  far  as  it  refers  to 
individuals,  is  restricted  to  the  present  state.  "  The  Spirit  itself 
beareth  witness  with  our  spirit  that  we  are  the  children  of  God." 
"Beloved,  now  are  we  the  sons  of  God.."  As  to  the  future,  we 
can  attain  to  nothing  more  than  the  full  assurance  of  hope. 
That  is  all  that  we  need;  that  is  all  that  can  be  of  service  to  us. 
This  animates  us,  stimulates  us  to  duty,  supports  us  under 
trial.  "And  every  man  that  hath  this  hope  in  him,  purifieth 
himself,  even  as  he  is  pure."  There  can  be  no  lack  of  comfort, 
solid  comfort,  when  there  is  this  hope  as  an  anchor  of  the  soul, 
sure  and  steadfast,  entering  into  that  within  the  veil.  It  is  all 
our  present  state  will  safely  bear.  It  leaves  room  for  that  fear 
of  caution  and  circumspection  and  modesty  which  is  so  necessary 
to  keep  us  humble  and  obedient,  and  consequently  happy;  for 
as  the  wise  man  says:  "Happy  is  the  man  that  feareth  always." 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  experience,  and  observation,  the  apostles  and 
primitive  Christians,  who  all  believed  in  the  amissibility  of 
grace,  were  the  happiest  men  that  ever  lived;  and  those  who 
most  nearly  resemble  them  in  our  days  are  those  who  firmly 
believe  the  same  doctrine,  namely,  that  saints  may  fall,  totally 
and  finally  fall;  or  that  they  ntay  fall  and  rise  again;  or  that  by 
watchfulness  and  diligence  in  performing  the  conditions  pre- 
scribed they  may  never  fall,  bat  make  their  calling  and  election 
sure,  "  for  so  an  entrance  shall  be  ministered  unto  them  abun- 
dantly into  the  everlasting  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ. 

§15.  Short  and  Easy  Settlement  of  the  Controversy. 

But  there  is  a  short  and  easy  method  of  settling  this  contro- 
versy. The  amissibility  of  grace  is  set  forth  in  every  way  in 
which  truth  is  inculcated  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The  plain, 
unequivocal,  and  manifold  testimonies  of  the  Scriptures  to  this 
doctrine  agree  with  all  we  know  of  the  divine  character  and  gov- 
ernment and  with  our  own  experience  and  observation.  There- 
fore, if  there  be  any  passages  of  scripture  which  seem  to  teach 
the  inamissibility  of  grace,  they  must  be  so  interpreted  (if  in- 
terpreted at  all),  as  to  harmonize  them  with  the  general  une- 
quivocal teaching  of  the  Scriptures  and  our  conceptions  of  the 
character  and  government  of  God  and  our  own  experience  and 
observation. 


BOOK  VII. 

ECCLESIOLOGY ;  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH, 
ITS  SACRAMENTS  AND  MINISTRY. 


I.  Of  the  Church.    (Article  XIII.) 
II.  Of  Purgatory.    (Article  XIV.) 

III.  Of  Speaking  in  the  Congregation  in  Such  a  Tongue 

AS  the  People  Understand.    ( Article  XV. ) 

IV.  Of  the  Sacraments.    ( Article  XVI.) 
V.  Of  Baptism.    ( Article  XVII.) 

VI.  Of  the  Lord's-supper.    (Article  XVIII.) 
VII.  Of  Both  Kinds.    (Article  XIX.) 

VIII.  Of  the  One  Oblation  of  Christ  Finished  upon  the 
Cross.    (Article  XX.) 
IX.  Op  the  Marriage  of  Ministers.    (Article  XXI.) 
X.  Of  the  Eites  and  Ceremonies  of  Churches.  (Article 
XXII.) 


PART  I 
ARTICLE  XIII. 

Of  the  Church. 

The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in 
ivhich  the  pure  Word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  sacraments  duly  ad- 
ministeredy  according  to  Christ's  ordinance,  in  all  those  things  that  of 
necessity  are  reqitisite  to  the  same. 


Introduction. 

This  article  corresponds  to  Article  XIX.  of  the  Anglican  Con- 
fession, except  that  the  latter  has  "  the  which,"  and  "  be  duly- 
administered: "  the  "be"  in  ours  was  probably  omitted  by  a 
typographical  mistake;  the  word  "are"  should  be  supplied. 
Then  the  Anglican  Article  has  this  addition :  "As  the  Church  of 
Jerusalem,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch  have  erred,  so  also  the 
Church  of  Eome  hath  erred,  not  only  in  their  living  and  manner 
of  ceremonies,  but  also  in  matters  of  faith:"  in  the  Latin, 
agenda  and  credenda.  This  is  a  strong  statement,  very  damaging 
to  the  Komish  Church,  which  is  here  charged  with  errors  in 
morals,  worship,  and  faith.  Easy  enough  is  it  to  make  this 
charge  good.  Look  at  the  imi)ious  casuistry  of  the  Jesuits; 
look  at  the  mummeries  and  idolatrous  rites  and  ceremonies 
which  make  up  so  large  a  part  of  Eomish  worship.  Look  at  the 
new  dogmas  decreed  by  councils  and  enforced  by  popes,  espe- 
cially the  twelve  articles  added  by  Pius  IV.  to  the  Apostles' 
Creed — all  of  them  erroneous;  and  the  two  dogmas  added  by 
Pius  IX. — equally  false  and  absurd.  Yet  this  corrupt  communion 
is  called  a  "Church,"  as  are  the  fallen  communions  of  Jerusa- 
lem, Alexandria,  and  Antioch,  because  they  still  hold  to  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  and  indeed  to  the  Holy  Scriptures;  albeit  it  is 
to  be  feared  that  they  make  the  word  of  God  of  none  effect,  in 
many  instances,  by  their  traditions.    But,  as  they  baptized  into 

(213) 


214 


The  Church. 


the  Creed  of  Christendom,  the  Keformers  recognized  the  validity 
of  tlieir  baptism,  and  were  ne-ver  rebaptized  themselves,  nor  did 
they  rebaptize  o-thers  who  had  been  baptized  by  papists.  We 
very  properly  indorse  their  views.  We  may  admit  that  the 
Eomish  communion  is  a  Christian  Church,  while  we  separate  from 
it  as  extremely  corrupt.  There  seemed  to  be  no  necessity,  how- 
ever, for  putting  this  into  the  Confession,  and  so  Mr.  Wesley 
properly  omitted  it.  The  article  seems  to  have  been  derived 
from  the  Seventh  Article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  which 
reads  thus: 

Tliey  likewise  teach  that  there  will  always  be  one  holy  Church.  Tiie  Church 
is  the  congregation  of  the  saints,  in  which  the  gospel  is  correctly  taught  and  the 
sacraments  are  properly  administered.  And  for  the  true  unity  of  the  Church 
nothing  more  is  required  tlian  agreement  concerning  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel 
and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  the  same  hu- 
man traditions — that  is,  rites  and  ceremonies  instituted  by  men — should  be  every- 
where observed.  As  Paul  says,  "One  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of 
all,"  etc. 

The  reference  to  rites  and  ceremonies  is  copied  into  our 
Twenty-second  Article.  It  ought  not  to  be  in  the  article  on  the 
Church. 

The  Augsburg  Article  needed  qualifying,  and  it  is  qualified 
in  our  article.  Our  article  is  not  very  happily  worded.  "  The 
Church  " — "  The  visible  Church  of  Christ " — seems  to  denote 
the  same  as  "  the  holy  Catholic  Church,  the  communion  of 
saints,"  in  the  Creed,  where  it  comprehends  all  Avho  have  been 
baptized  and  have  not  forsaken  the  Christian  cause.  And  yet 
when  it  speaks  of  "  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,"  and  specifies 
"the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Home," 
it  seems  to  refer  to  a  particular  Church.  Litton  attempts  to  re- 
move the  difficulty  by  translating  the  Latin  Ecclesia  Christi  vis- 
ihilis,  "A  visible  Church,"  forgetting  that,  as  Burnet  says,  "the 
articles  of  our  Church  were  at  the  same  time  prepared  both  in 
Latin  and  English,  so  that  they  both  are  equally  authenticated." 
Perhaps,  as  Wesley  intimates,  it  was  designed  to  embrace  both, 
a  particular  Church  and  the  Church  Catholic. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  CHURCH:  ITS  SCRIPTURAL  IDEA. 
§  1.  The  Distinction  of  Visible  and  Invisible. 

By  speaking  of  "the  visible  Church,"  the  article  seems  to  im- 
ply that  there  is  an  invisible  Clnirch. 

By  this  is  not  meant,  as  some  hold,  the  Church  triumphant  in 
heaven  (which  is  invisible  to  us)  as  contrasted  with  the  Church 
militant  on  earth,  though  there  is  a  sense  in  which  our  brethren 
in  Paradise  are  members  of  "  the  holy  Catholic  Church,  the  com- 
munion of  saints." 

One  army  of  the  living  God, 
To  his  command  we  bow; 
Part  of  his  host  have  crossed  the  flood. 
And  part  are  crossing  now. 

But  the  Catholic  Church  on  earth  is  one  body;  in  one  sense 
visible,  and  in  another  sense  invisible.  All  who  profess  and  call 
themselves  Christians,  having  been  baptized  in  the  name  of 
Christ,  are  members  of  the  Church  as  it  is  visible;  but  only  those 
who  are  sincere  believers — ccetus  Jideliimi — are  members  of  the 
Church  as  it  is  invisible.  What  the  apostle  says  of  the  Jew, 
iniitatis  mutandis,  may  be  said  of  the  Christian:  "  For  he  is  not 
a  Jew,  which  is  one  outwardly;  neither  is  that  circumcision, 
which  is  outward  in  the  flesh:  but  he  is  a  Jew,  which  is  one  in- 
wardly; and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and 
not  in  the  letter;  whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God." 
(Rom.  ii.  28,  29. ) 

§  2.  Membership  in  the  Visible  and  Invisible  Churches. 

Though  all  the  members  of  the  invisible  Church  may  be  mem- 
bers of  the  visible  Church,  yet  all  the  members  of  the  visible 
Church  are  not  members  of  the  invisible.  This  is  taught  us  by 
our  Lord  in  the  parables  of  the  field  of  wheat  and  tares,  the  net 
of  good  fishes  and  bad,  etc.  (Matt,  xiii.)  It  does  not  follow 
that  gross  offenders  are  not  to  be  excommunicated  because  we 
cannot  distinguish  the  wheat  from  the  tares,  or,  if  the  distinction 

(215) 


216 


The  Church. 


can  be  made,  cannot  always  separate  the  one  from  the  other.  The 
field  is  a  wheat-field,  though  tares  may  grow  in  it.  There  was  a 
Judas  in  the  Apostolic  College,  and  his  true  character  was  known 
to  tlie  Saviour  long  before  it  was  known  to  the  traitor's  asso- 
ciates. So  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  Simon  Magus,  and  other  un- 
worthy persons  ^vho  did  not  belong  to  the  invisible  Church 
were  for  awhile  members  of  the  visible  Church,  till  they  were 
detected  and  disowned  by  the  apostles. 

§  3.  Salvation  Without  the  Pale  of  the  Church. 

It  is  not  meant,  when  it  is  asserted  that  all  who  belong  to  tne 
invisible  Church  are  members  of  the  visible  Church,  that  all  who 
have  not  been  incorporated  into  the  visible  Church  by  baptism 
are  excluded  from  the  favor  of  God  and  the  kingdom  of  grace 
and  ^lory.  All  infants  are  in  the  favor  of  God  and  are  entitled 
to  membership  in  the  visible  Church,  and,  dying  in  infancy,  will 
be  sure  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  glory.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  Jews,  Turks,  and  heathen,  and  ill-instr acted  persons  in 
Christendom,  who  improve  the  light  and  grace  afforded  them. 
This  is  in  accordance  with  reason  and  Scripture.  (Rom.  ii.  14, 
15.)  They  are  accepted  by  God  for  the  sake  of  Christ  who  died 
for  them  and  whose  S^jirit  is  imparted  to  them,  though  they 
have  never  heard  of  the  Saviour's  name,  and  of  course  could  not 
believe  in  Jiim  and  be  baptized.  They  have  never  rejected  him, 
and  they  evince  such  a  disposition  as  would  induce  them  to  re- 
ceive him  as  their  Saviour,  like  the  man  in  the  gospel,  who,  when 
asked,  "Dost  thou  believe  on  the  Son  of  God?"  answered  and 
said,  "  Who  is  he  Lord,  that  I  might  believe  on  him?  "  and  when 
he  was  made  acquainted  with  him  said,  "Lord,  I  believe!" 
(John  ix.)  Such  persons,  including  infants,  are  sometimes  called 
virtual  members  of  the  Church,  both  visible  and  invisible.  But 
the  term  Church,  as  used  in  the  New  Testament,  scarcely  allows 
of  such  a  latitude.  "  We  openly  affirm,"  says  the  French  Con- 
fession, "  that  where  the  Word  of  God  is  not  received,  where 
there  is  no  profession  of  faith  and  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments, there,  properly  speaking,  we  cannot  affirm  that  there  is  any 
Church."  "We  do  not,"  says  Melancthon,  "as  some  cavilers 
affirm,  dream  of  a  Platonic  republic:  as  we  say  that  the  Church 
is  an  existing  reality;  and  we  assign  the  notes  of  it— the  word 
and  the  sacraments." 


ItH  Scriptural  Idea. 


217 


On  this  question,  however,  there  has  been  a  great  war  of 
words,  into  which  it  would  be  unprofitable  for  us  to  enter.  It 
began  with  the  Fathers,  who  were  inconsistent  with  themselves, 
as  they  would  sometimes  allow  salvation  to  well-disposed  hea- 
thens, who  were  in  invincible  ignorance,  and  yet  maintain  that 
none  could  be  saved  outside  the  pale  of  the  Church  and  the  pro- 
fession of  the  orthodox  creed.  Thus  Cyprian  says  the  Church  is 
the  mother  of  all  God's  children ;  it  is  like  Noah's  ark,  in  which 
all  Avho  would  be  saved  must  take  refuge.  From  him  was  de- 
rived the  maxim:  Habere  jam  non  potest  Deum  Patrem  qui  eccle- 
siam  non  hahet  matrem:  "None  can  have  God  for  a  Father  who 
has  not  the  Church  for  a  mother."  Hence  the  damnatory 
clauses  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  and  the  Creed  of  Pope  Pius 
IV.,  and  similar  shocking  and  impious  deliverances  of  Protest- 
ants, as  well  as  Papists,  for  which,  it  need  scarcely  be  said,  there 
is  not  the  slightest  authority  in  the  Scripture. 

§4.  Signification  of  the  Term  Church  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  word  h/Arinia  occurs  one  hundred  and  fifteen  times  in  the 
New  Testament  (counting  Acts  ii.  47,  where  it  may  be  an  inter- 
polation, as  it  is  not  in  the  best  MSS.  or  in  the  Pievised  Version). 
In  three  places  (Acts  xix.  32,  39,  41)  it  is  properly  rendered  "  as- 
sembly," as  it  refers  to  a  popular  assemblage  of  citizens  of  Eph- 
esus.  In  two  places  (Acts  vii.  38  and  Heb.  ii.  12)  it  refers  to  the 
congregation  of  Israel,  the  Hebrew  kalial  being  frequently  ren- 
dered iy.yJ.r/<Tia  in  the  Septuagint.  In  the  other  one  hundred  and 
ten  cases  it  refers  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  though  with  various 
modifications  of  meaning.  It  is  thouglit  by  some  to  refer  in 
Eph.  V.  27  to  the  Church  triumphant  in  heaven;  but  the  word  is 
used  six  times  in  this  paragraph,  where  the  relation  between 
husband  and  wife  is  compared  to  the  relation  between  Christ  and 
his  Church:  the  Church  is  subject  to  Christ,  who  is  the  Head 
of  the  Church;  Christ  loved  the  Church,  and  gave  himself  for 
it;  he  sanctifies  it,  cherishes  it,  to  the  intent  that  he  might  pre- 
sent it  to  himself  a  glorious  Church,  perfectly  holy.  That  is 
what  the  Church  should  be,  though  as  a  body  it  never  will  be, 
in  the  present  state.  Hence  the  ideal  Church  is  the  Church 
after  having  passed  through  the  sanctifying  process  specified,  so 
that  it  shall  be  presented  faultless  before  the  presence  of  his 
glory  with  exceeding  joy.    Thus  the  militant  Church,  separated 


218 


The  Church. 


from  all  unworthy  members  and  freed  from  all  imperfections, 
will  be  developed  and  consummated  into  the  Church  triumphant, 
holy  and  without  blemish. 

In  Heb.  xii.  23  we  read  of  the  "Church  of  the  first-born, 
which  are  written  in  heaven."  These  Bloomfield  identifies  with 
"the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect;"  and  so  the  Church  here 
is  the  Church  triumphant.  Macknight  considers  them  the  pious 
Hebrews  of  the  Old  Testament,  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  and 
others,  as  in  Heb.  xi.  AVhitby  considers  them  the  ajjostles  and 
first  believers,  as  in  Eom.  viii.  23.  Stuart  understands  it  of 
"those  who  had  been  most  distinguished  for  piety  and  useful- 
ness, such  as  patriarchs,  x^rophets,  apostles,  martyrs,"  etc.  The 
spirits  of  the  just  made  jjerfect,  he  says,  are  those  who  are  "  ex- 
alted to  a  state  of  final  reward,  having  completed  their  probation 
and  arrived  at  their  mature  state — viz.,  a  final  state  of  glory." 
Webster  and  Wilkinson  i^erhajjs  give  the  sense: 

The  Church  mystical,  avIio  are  wliat  they  profess  to  be,  and  are  entitled  to  a 
share  of  the  privileges  of  elder  sons.  (Luke  x.  20;  Phil.  iv.  3;  Rev.  xxi.  27.)  Hpu- 
TOTOKCJv,  a  title  of  the  natural  Israel  (Ex.  iv.  22,  23;  ef.  xix.  5;  Dent,  xxxii.  8,  9), 
liere  transferred  to  the  spiritual  TrpuroroKoi,  quorum  nomina  in  iahuloa  civium  coeli 
relata,  Christiani  lidentur  forsan  iidemde  quibm.  (Apoc.  xiv.  4;  xx.  4.)  The  spir- 
its of  the  just  made  perfect  are  those  who  have  attained  the  consummation  of 
bliss. 

This  "Church  mystical"  is  what  is  meant  by  the  "invisible 
Church."  Of  course  when  we  join  the  visible  Church,  we  are 
come  to  the  invisible  Church,  which  is  comprehended  in  the  vis- 
ible. In  no  other  place,  it  is  believed,  is  the  invisible  Church 
distinguished  from  the  visible. 

The  word  "  Church  "  is  of  uncertain  origin.  It  is  generally 
derived  from  Anglo-Saxon  circ,  pronounced  as  the  Scotch  kirk, 
and  with  variations  in  other  Northern  languages,  from  the  Greek 
■/.upia/.rj,  7.opia/.<h,  the  Lord's  house,  from  y.op'M/Mz^  concerning  a  lord. 
Other  derivatives  may  be  seen  in  McClintock  and  Strong's  Cy- 
clopedia. But  this  is  of  little  importance.  It  is  absurdly  used 
for  hpofToh,:;  in  Acts  xix.  37,  where  the  Authorized  Version  has 
"robbers  of  churches."  In  all  other  places  it  stands  for  l/./lrirria. 
This  word  comes  from  iy.y.alio),  to  call  out.  The  Greeks  used  the 
word  i/./lr^oia.  for  an  assembly  of  the  citizens  called  out  to  con- 
sider matters  of  public  interest.  (Acts  xix.)  Words  are  gen- 
erally corrupted  by  use,  and  so  l/./.^nia  was  sometimes  used  to 


Its  Scriptural  Idea. 


219 


designate  any  assembly,  however  convened — e.  g.,  the  mob  at  Eph- 
esus.  ( Acts  xix.  32. )  In  the  Septuagint  h./.Ar^<7ia  is  used  seventy 
times  for  the  Hebrew  ka'hal,  which  is  from  the  verb  meaning  to  call 
together,  and  designates  a  convocation  or  assembly  or  congrega- 
tion, as  of  the  Israelites  convened  for  any  purpose,  especially  for 
religious  worship.  (Deut.  xviii.  16;  Ps.  xxii.  22;  cf.  Heb.  ii.  12; 
Acts  vii,  38.)  So  1  Mace.  ii.  56:  "Caleb,  for  bearing  witness  be- 
fore the  congregation  [^l/./.Ar^aia]  received  the  heritage  of  the  land." 
{Cf.  iv.  59. )  As  the  kindred  word  synagogue  is  used  to  denote  not 
only  the  assembly,  but  also  the  place  in  which  it  met,  so  the  word 
church  is  also  used  in  that  sense.  It  is  thought  by  many  that 
l-A'/lr^aia  is  SO  used  in  1  Cor.  xi.  18-22;  xiv.  23;  but  others  think  it 
there  denotes,  as  usual,  the  assembly  itself. 

§  5.  New  Testament  Uses  Discriminated. 

According  to  the  analogy  of  kalial,  ix/.^dia  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, excluding  the  exceptions  noted,  denotes:  (1)  The  Catholic 
Church,  ideally  considered  as  a  congregation,  but  really  a  socie- 
ty— congregation  being  rather  a  property  of  it,  in  its  subaltern 
constituencies.  It  is  a  society,  made  up  of  all  the  particular 
Churches  in  the  world,  and  by  them  made  visible.  It  is  used  in 
this  sense  in  the  first  of  the  two  passages  in  which  it  is  used  in 
the  Gospels,  Matt.  xvi.  18:  "Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it,"  that 
IS,  it  shall  never  be  destroyed;  it  shall  be  an  immortal  society. 
So  in  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  Eph.  i.  22;  iii.  10,  21;  Col.  i.  18,  24;  1  Tim.  iii. 
15,  and  other  places.  (2)  The  aggregate  of  all  the  particular 
Churches  in  a  city  is  called  the  Church  of  that  city.  (Acts  viii. 
1,  3;  xi.  22,  26;  1  Cor.  i.  2;  xiv.  34;  Eev.  i.;  ii.;  iii.)  (3)  A 
particular  congregation  or  society  of  Christians,  worshiping 
statedly  in  one  place.  It  seems  to  denote  this  in  the  other  place 
in  the  Gospels,  where  it  is  used  twice.  (Matt,  xviii.  17.)  It  is 
so  used  in  Rom.  xvi.  3,  5,  1  Cor.  xvi.  19;  Col.  iv.  15;  Phil.  i.  2. 

In  the  New  Testament  the  word  is  never  used  in  the  singular 
to  denote  the  Church  of  a  nation,  state,  or  pi'ovince,  as  we  say 
the  Church  of  Rome,  England,  Scotland,  etc. :  it  is  always  "  the 
Churches  of  Galatia"  (1  Cor.  xvi.  1;  Gal.  i.  2);  "the  Churches 
of  Asia"  (1  Cor.  xvi.  19);  "the  Churches  of  Macedonia"  (2  Cor. 
viii.  1);  "  the  Churches  of  Judea"  (Gal.  i.  22).  Of  course  there  is 
nothing  like  what  we  call  "denominational  Churches,"  as  Luther- 
an, Calvinist,  Episcopal,  Presbyterian,  Methodist,  Baptist,  etc. 


220 


The  Church. 


§  6.  Sense  of  the  Term  in  the  Article,  Catechism,  and  Apos- 
tles' Creed. 

As  already  intimated,  our  Article  may  have  been  worded  in  a 
somewhat  general  way,  so  as  to  embrace  both  a  particular  Church 
and  the  Church  Catholic.  However,  the  Church  Catholic  is  prin- 
cipally meant,  made  visible  by  the  particular  Churches  of  which 
it  is  constituted.  The  word  "congregation"  therefore  means 
"society,"  as  kahal  is  frequently  used  in  speaking  of  the  whole 
people  of  Israel,  whether  assembled  or  not.  It  implies,  however, 
that  this  society  has  its  congregations  or  assemblies  for  divine 
worship,  as  here  specified.  This  is  what  is  meant  by  the  Wesleyan 
Catechism  when  it  defines  the  Church  as  "  the  whole  body  of 
true  believers  in  every  age  and  place,"  since  it  goes  on  to  specify 
preaching  the  word  and  ministering  the  sacraments,  and  says 
"baptized  persons  are  made  members  of  the  visible  Church," 
thus  embracing  not  only  believers,  but  also  their  children,  being 
baptized.  In  the  Apostles'  Creed  the  Church  is  styled  "The  • 
holy  catholic  Church,  the  communion  of  saints."  This  is  the 
visible,  as  well  as  the  invisible.  Church. 

[In  harmony  with  the  foregoing,  Dr.  Pope  remarks: 

The  terra  catholic  means  universal;  and  when  local  is  added,  as  its  counter- 
l^art,  the  two  expressions  signify  that  the  one  Church  of  the  Redeemer,  his  body 
on  earth,  has  such  a  universality  in  its  design  and  destiny  as  is  consistent  with  the 
local  independence  of  individual  Churches.  .  .  .  The  Christian  Church  may 
be  regarded  as  catholic:  designed  and  adapted  for  universal  diffusion;  and  embrac- 
ing the  totality  of  those  communions  which  maintain  the  trutlis  in  wliich  the  es- 
sence of  Christianity  lies.  The  term,  therefore,  ought  never  to  be  used  of  any  par- 
ticular community.  Tlie  Churcli  is  also  local  or  'particular:  it  exists  in  independ- 
ent and  even  isolated  forms,  wlietlier  as  it  respects  individual  or  connectional  or 
national  bodies;  and  it  may,  holding  tlie  catliolic  verities,  maintain  in  its  confes- 
sion truths  that  are  not  catliolic,  and  adopt  uncatholic  usages,  without  impairing 
its  catholicity.  For  the  one  Church  of  Christ  is  at  once  adapted  for  every  variety 
of  mankind,  and  influenced  in  its  turn  by  every  variety  of  human  life.  It  is  not 
more  certainly  Universal  than  it  is  Particular.* 

Catholicity  is,  of  course,  a  true  predicate  of  the  invisible 
Church.  But,  in  the  following  chapter,  will  be  declared  at  large 
in  what  sense  the  Church  is  at  once  both  visible,  or  particular, 
and  catholic,  or  universal.  At  the  same  time,  the  confusion 
which  characterizes  many  of  the  Protestant  Confessions  will  be 
brought  under  notice,  together  with  the  positive  errors  into  which 
Greeks,  Latins,  and  Anglicans  have  fallen.] 


^    ^-  Pope,  "  Compendium,"  etc..  Vol.  III.,  pp.  282-284. 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  CHURCH  AS  CATHOLIC  AND  VISIBLE. 

§1.  Confusion  of  the  Protestant  Confessions. 

Luther  in  his  Larger  Catechism  says:  "  I  believe  that  there  is 
upon  earth  a  certain  community  of  saints,  composed  solely  of  holy 
persons;  under  one  Head,  collected  together  by  the  Spirit;  of 
one  faith,  and  one  mind,  endowed  with  manifold  gifts;  but  united 
in  love,  and  wdthout  sects  or  divisions."  We  may  well  ask, 
"Where  shall  we  wander  now  to  find  such  a  community?"  The 
property  which  belongs  exclusively  to  the  invisible  Church  is 
here  loosely  predicated  of  the  visible  Church. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  in  the  Seventh  Article,  already 
cited,  says: 

There  will  always  be  one  holy  Church.  The  Church  is  the  congregation  of  the 
saints,  in  which  the  gospel  is  correctly  taught  and  the  sacraments  are  properly 
administered.  And  for  the  true  unity  of  the  Ciiurch  nothing  more  is  required  than 
agreement  concerning  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  and  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments. 

This  is  less  objectionable  than  Luther's  definition,  but  it  is 
obvious  that  there  never  w^as  a  catholic  Church  answering  to  this 
description. 

The  Helvetic  Confession  (1566)  says: 

The  Church  is  a  community  of  believers  or  saints,  gathered  out  of  the  world, 
whose  distinction  it  is  to  know  and  to  Avorship,  through  the  word  and  by  tlie  Spirit, 
the  true  God  in  Christ  our  Saviour,  and  by  faith  to  participate  in  all  the  blessings 
freely  given  to  us  through  Christ.  These  are  all  citizens  of  one  polity,  subjects 
of  the  same  Lord  under  the  same  laws,  and  recipients  of  the  same  spiritual  bless- 
ings. It  is  concerning  them  that  the  Article  of  the  Creed,  "I  believe  in  the  holy 
catholic  Church,"  is  to  be  understood. 

The  Belgic  Confession  is  like  it: 

The  catholic  Church  is  the  community  of  all  true  believers— viz.,  those  who  hope 
in  Christ  alone  for  salvation  and  are  sanctified  by  his  Spirit.  It  is  not  attached 
to  any  one  place  or  limited  to  particular  persons,  the  members  of  it  being  dis- 
persed throughout  the  world. 

The  Polish  Confession  says: 

There  are  particular  Churches  and  the  Church  universal.    The  true  universal 

(221) 


222 


The  'Church. 


Church  is  tlie  community  of  all  believers  dispersed  throughout  the  world,  who  are 
and  who  remain  one  catholic  Church  so  long  as  they  are  united  by  subjection  to 
one  Head,  Christ,  by  the  indwelling  of  one  Spirit  and  the  profession  of  the  same 
faith  ;  and  this  though  they  be  not  a.ssociated  in  one  common  external  polity,  but, 
as  regards  external  fellowship  and  ecclesiastical  regimen,  be  not  in  communion 
witii  each  oilier. 

Xowell's  Catechism,  -wliicli  is  of  semi-symbolical  authority  in 
the  Church  of  England,  defines  the  Church  thus:  "The  Church 
is  the  universal  society  of  all  the  faithful  whom  God  predesti- 
nated from  eternity  to  everlasting  life  through  Christ."  This 
is  the  invisible  catholic  Church  of  the  Creed;  but  the  Catechism 
says : 

There  is  however,  also,  a  visible  Church  of  God — a  certain  society  of  persons, 
wherever  they  may  be,  who  profess  the  pure  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  celebrate  the 
sacraments  as  the  word  of  God  directs.  These  are  the  indispensable  notes  of  a 
Church,  but  if  the  Church  be  in  a  healthy  condition,  it  will  also  exhibit  the  ex- 
ercise of  discipline. 

The  Sixty-eighth  Article  of  the  Dublin  Convocation  (1615)  says : 

There  is  but  one  catholic  Church  (out  of  which  there  is  no  salvation),  contain- 
ing the  universal  company  of  all  the  saints  that  ever  were,  are,  or  shall  be,  gath- 
ered together  in  one  body,  under  one  Head — Christ  Jesus — part  Arhereof  is  already 
in  heaven  triumphant,  part  as  yet  militant  here  upon  earth.  And  because  this 
Church  consistelh  of  all  those,  and  those  alone,  which  are  elected  by  God  unto 
salvation,  and  regenerated  by  the  power  of  his  ^^pi^it,  the  number  of  whom  is 
known  only  unto  God  himself,  therefore  it  is  called  the  catholic,  or  universal,  and 
the  invisible  Church, 

In  the  following  articles  "particular  and  visible  Churches, 
many  in  number,"  are  recognized. 

These  Reformed  Confessions  make  the  catholic  Church  invis- 
ible. This,  indeed,  is  explicitly  stated  in  the  Scotch  Confession, 
which  defines  the  Church  as 

A  society  of  the  elect  of  all  ages  and  countries,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles — this 
is  the  catholic  or  univei^al  Churcli.  Those  who  are  members  of  it  worship  God 
in  Clirist  and  enjoy  fellowship  with  him  through  the  Spirit.  This  Church  is  in- 
visible, known  only  to  Gwl,  who  alone  knows  who  are  his,  and  comprehends  both 
the  departed  in  the  I^rd  and  the  elect  upon  earth. 

The  relation  which  this  sustains  to  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of 
absolute,  unconditional  election  is  obvious.  Dr.  John  Owen  says 
that  David  alluded  to  the  members  of  this  Church  of  the  elect 
in  Ps.  cxxxix.  16:  "In  thy  book  all  my  members  were  -ssTitten, 
which  in  continuance  were  fashioned,  when  as  yet  there  was  none 
of  them."  To  what  length  will  not  a  fanatical  attachment  to  an 
erroneous  dogma  carry  one? 


The  Church  as  Catholic  and  Visible, 


223 


§  2.  Greek,  Roman,  and  High-church  Errors. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Greek  Church  says  in  its  Catechism : 
"  The  Church  is  a  divinely  instituted  community  of  men,  united 
by  the  orthodox  faith,  the  law  of  God,  the  hierarchy,  and  the 
sacraments."  This  definition  " e^xcludes  all  separatists  who  either 
do  not  receive  the  divine  word  at  all,  or  mix  with  it  their  own  ab- 
surd opinions" — that  is,  all  who  are  not  of  the  orthodox  faith, 
namely,  all  who  are  not  members  of  the  Greek  Church. 

The  Council  of  Trent  does  the  same  thing  in  regard  to  all  who 
are  not  of  the  "Roman  obedience."  Bellarmin  says:  The 
Church  is  a  society  of  men,  united  by  a  profession  of  the  same 
Christian  faith  and  a  participation  of  the  same  sacraments,  under 
the  government  of  lawful  pastors,  and  especially  of  the  one 
vicar  of  Christ  upon  earth,  the  E-oman  pontiff." 

The  High-church  Anglicans  follow  the  example  of  the  Greek 
and  Boman  Churches,  only  they  substitute  for  the  orthodox  faith 
and  hierarchy  of  the  former,  and  the  lawful  pastors  and  Roman 
pontiffs  of  the  other,  "bishops  and  priests,  assisted  by  deacons, 
in  regular  succession  from  the  apostles."  "  Of  this  one  society 
there  cannot  be  two  branches  in  one  and  the  same  place  opposed 
to  each  other,  either  in  discipline  or  in  doctrine."  (See  Hook's 
"  Church  Dictionary,"  Art.  Church.)  This  excludes  every  Chris- 
tian "society"  in  Great  Britain  except  the  Anglican. 

§3.  The  True  View  of  the  Church,  Visible  and  Catholic. 

In  opposition  to  these  conflicting,  arrogant,  and  exclusive 
views,  we  hold  with  Gieseler,  "  Church  History,"  Vol.  !.,§!: 

If  we  judge  of  the  various  Churclies  into  wlilch  Christendom  is  divided,  by  their 
conforming  in  all  respects  to  the  principles  and  requirements  of  the  Gospel,  ^ye 
cannot  allow  that  any  one  of  them  is  the  i)erfect  representative  of  that  ideal  state 
at  which  they  all  aim ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  can  we  entirely  deny  the  name  of  a 
Christian  Church  to  any  one  which  professes  to  be  built  on  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 
They  have  all  so  much  in  common  in  this  religious  faith  and  life,  and  so  much 
which  distinguishes  them  from  all  other  religious  societies,  as  to  justify  us  in  con- 
sidering them  as  one  whole,  and  calling  them,  in  a  wide  sense,  "The  Christian 
Church." 

A  recent  writer  in  the  "Contemporary  Review"  says:  "A  uni- 
versal religion,  starting  with  individual  faith,  but  adding  imme- 
diately an  obligation  to  confess  that  faith  and  to  proselytize,  is 
already  (according  to  the  Protestant  definition)  a  Church." 


224 


The  Church 


In  the  "Form  of  Presbyterian  Church  Government,"  adopted 
by  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines,  it  is  stated: 

There  is  one  general  Church  visible  held  fortli  in  the  New  Testament.  (1 
Cor.  xii.) 

The  ministry,  oracles,  and  ordinances  of  the  Xew  Testament  were  given  by- 
Jesus  Christ  to  the  general  Church  visible,  for  the  gathering  and  perfecting  of  it 
in  this  life  until  his  second  coming.    (1  Cor.  xii.;  Eph.  iv.) 

Particular  visible  Cluirches,  members  of  the  general  Church,  are  also  held 
forth  in  the  New  Testament.  Particular  Churches,  in  the  primitive  times,  were 
made  up  of  visible  saints — viz.,  of  such  as  being  of  age,  professed  faith  in  Christ, 
and  obedience  unto  Christ,  according  to  the  rules  of  faith  and  hope  taught  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  of  their  children.  (Acts  ii,  38-41,  and  verse  last  com- 
pared with  v.  14;  1  Cor.  i.  3,  compared  with  2  Cor.  ix.  13;  Acts  ii.  39;  1  Cor.  vii. 
14;  Rom.  ix.  16  and  so  forward;  Mark  x.  14,  compared  with  Matt.  xix.  13,  14; 
Luke  xviii.  15,  16.) 

This  is  compatible  with  the  true  doctrine  of  a  catholic,  visible 
Church. 

Augustin  opposed  the  Donatists  for  asserting  that  to  predicate 
catholicity  of  the  Church  it  is  necessary  that  it  should  have  sub- 
jective purity  in  its  members,  and  that  so  soon  as  it  allows  un- 
worthy persons  to  remain  within  its  pales  it  ceases  to  be  cath- 
olic. This  error,  which  crops  out  in  every  age,  arises  from 
confounding  the  visible  with  the  invisible  Church,  as  already 
noted.  Augustin  was  not  very  clear  on  this  subject;  he  says: 
*'  Many,  by  partaking  of  the  sacrament,  are  ivith  the  Church,  and 
yet  are  not  in  the  Church."  "What  he  means  is  that  they  are  in 
the  visible,  but  not  in  the  invisible  Church,  as  he  says:  "Those 
who  appear  to  be  in  the  Church,  and  contradict  Christ,  therefore 
do  not  belong  to  that  Church  which  is  called  the  body  of 
Christ;"  that  is,  the  mystical,  invisible  Church. 

Litton  partakes  of  Augustin's  obscurity;  he  speaks  of  the 
true  Church  in  distinction  from  the  dsihle  Church,  and  dwells 
much  upon  this  distinction ;  and  yet  he  says  a  true  Christian  so- 
ciety is  a  true  Church  visible,  if  it  has  the  word  and  sacraments, 
which  forces  him  to  explain  that  it  is  called  "  true,  not  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  invisible  Church  is  true,  but  because  the  true 
means  of  salvation  are  therein  dispensed."  This  ambiguity  is 
unfortunate.  There  is  great  danger  of  leaning  toward  Donatism 
in  opposing  Eomanism. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  CHURCH. 
§  1.  Notes  Enumerated  by  the  Reformers. 

The  second  part  of  the  "Homily  for  Whitsunday,"  set  forth 
under  Elizabeth,  says: 

The  true  Church  is  a  universal  congregation  or  fellowship  of  Gpd's  faitliful  and 
elect  people,  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  propliets,  Jesus  Christ 
being  the  head  corner-stone.  (Eph.  ii.)  And  it  liath  always  these  rites  whereby 
it  is  known:  pure  and  sound  doctrine,  the  sacraments  ministered  according  to 
Christ's  holy  institution,  and  the  right  use  of  ecclesiastical  discipline. 

The  Catechism  of  Edward  VI.  says: 

The  marks  of  the  Church  arc,  first,  pure  preaching  of  the  gospel;  then,  broth- 
erly love;  tliirdly,  upright  and  uncorrupted  use  of  the  Lord's  sacraments,  accord- 
ing to  the  ordinance  of  the  gospel;  last  of  all,' brotherly  correction  and  excom- 
munication, or  banishing  those  out  of  the  Church  that  will  not  amend  themselves: 
tl)is  mark  the  holy  fathers  termed  discipline. 

So  Bishop  Ridley,  only  he  has  "  charity "  in  the  place  of 
"brotherly  love" — meaning  perhaps  the  same. 

Nowell's  Catechism  has  "  sound  doctrine  and  right  use  of  the 
sacraments,  and  then  the  use  of  just  discipline." 

Litton  observes:  "  The  Protestant  says,  in  general,  the  Church 
(or  a  part  of  it)  is  then  where  the  word  and  sacraments  are,  and 
the  society  in  which  the  one  is  preached  and  the  other  adminis- 
tered is  a  legitimate  part  of  the  visible  Catholic  Church."  He 
adds:  "Some  formularies — e.  g.,  the  Scotch  Confession,  Art. 
xviii. — add  the  exercise  of  discipline;  and,  indeed,  this  does  seem 
to  be  nearly  as  essential  as  the  notes  specified  in  our  Article." 

Bishop  Browne  remarks: 

It  is  probable  that  tlie  compilers  of  the  articles,  Avlio  elsewhere  made  this  use 
of  the  keys  one  note  of  tlie  Church,  omitted  it  in  tlie  article  itself,  as  considering 
tliat  it  was  implied  in  tlie  due  administration  of  the  sacraments.  For  what  is  the 
power  of  the  keys  and  the  observance  of  discipline  but  the  admission  of  some  to 
and  the  rejection  of  others  from  tlie  sacraments  and  blessing  of  the  Church? 
Where,  therefore,  the  sacraments  are  duly  ministered  there  too  discipline  must 
exist. 

15  Vol.  II.  (225) 


226 


The  Church. 


Mr.  Wesley  says: 

According  to  tlie  definition  in  this  article,  those  congregations  in  which  the 
pure  word  of  God  (a  strong  expression)  is  not  preached  are  no  parts  either  of  the 
Church  of  England  or  the  Church  Catholic,^  as  neither  are  those  in  which  the 
sacraments  are  not  duly  administered.  I  will  not  undertake  to  defend  the  ixc- 
curacy  of  this  definition.  I  dare  not  exclude  from  the  Church  Catholic  all  those 
congregations  in  which  any  unscriptural  doctrines  which  cannot  be  affirmed  to  be 
"the  pure  word  of  God,"  are  sometimes,  yea,  frequently,  preached;  neither  all 
those  congregations  in  which  the  sacraments  are  not  duly  administered.  Certain- 
ly, if  these  things  are  so,  the  Church  of  Kome  is  not  so  much  as  a  part  of-  the 
Catholic  Church;  seeing  therein  neither  is  "the  pure  word  of  God"  preached, 
nor  the  sacraments  "duly  administered."  Whoever  they  are  that  have  "one  Spirit, 
one  hope,  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  God  and  Father  of  all,"  I  can  easily  bear  with 
their  holding  wrong  opinions,  yea,  and  superstitious  modes  of  worship;  nor  would 
I  on  these  accounts  scruple  still  to  include  them  within  the  pale  of  the  Catholic 
Church;  neither  would  I  have  any  objection  to  receive  them,  if  they  desired  it, 
as  members  of  the  Church  of  England, 

On  the  other  hand  Bishop  Browne  well  says: 

The  expression  is  not  "the  word  of  God  is  purely  preached,"  but  "the  pure 
word  of  God  is  preached."  If  the  former  words  had  been  used,  wc  might  have 
doubted  in  what  body  of  Christians  God's  word  was  always  purely  preached,  with 
no  mixture  of  falsehood  or  error.  But  "the  pure  word  of  God"  is  preached 
wherever  the  main  doctrines  of  the  gospel  are  preserved  and  taught. 

He  proceeds  to  specify  the  Apostles'  Creed  as  their  exponent 
— all  Christians  agreeing  in  that  symbol.  But  when  he  goes  on 
to  say  that  none  are  allowed  to  f>reach  the  word  or  administer 
the  sacraments  but  "bishops  and  presbyters,"  he  indorses  the  ar- 
rogant exclusiveness  of  High-church  Anglicans,  who  repudiate 
the  ministrations  of  all  who  are  not  episcopally  ordained. 

He  cites  Luther,  Calvin,  and  other  continental  Pieformers, 
as  well  as  the  English  Reformers,  as  holding  that  the  Roman 
communion  is  a  Church  —  a  part  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
though  fallen  and  corrupt.  Hence  they  all  maintained  the  va- 
lidity of  Romish  baptism,  as  do  we.  None  of  the  Reformers 
were  rebaptized.  Notwithstanding  the  arrogance  and  bigotry  of 
High-church  Anglicans  and  Papists,  they  recognize  the  validity 
of  the  baptism  of  those  whom  they  stigmatize  as  schismatics  and 
heretics,  though  they  inconsistently  repudiate  their  ordinations, 
as  the  Romanists  repudiate  the  Anglican  ordinations,  and  the 
Greeks  repudiate  all  others  but  their  own.  It  would  seem  that 
the  farther  men  are  removed  from  the  true  doctrine  and  ordi- 
nances of  the  Church,  the  more  arrogant  and  exclusive  they  are. 


4 


Notes  of  the  CJtio'ch. 


227 


§2.  Cardinal  Bellarmin's  Notes. 

Cardinal  Bellarmin  has  gone  the  greatest  length  in  arrogant 
exclusiveiiess.  He  excludes  from  all  claim  to  the  character  of  a 
Church  every  Christian  Society  which  lacks  any  one  of  the  fol- 
lowing fifteen  ''Notes  of  the  Church:"  "Catholicity,  antiquity, 
duration,  amplitude,  episcopal  succession,  apostolical  agreement, 
unity,  sanctity  of  doctrine,  efficacy  of  doctrine,  holiness  o£  life, 
miracles,  prophecy,  admission  of  adversaries,  unhappy  end  of  ene- 
mies, and  temporal  felicity."  It  is  obvious  that  these  "Notes" 
were  mada  to  order.  By  the  tricks  of  legerdemain  they  are  made 
to  accord  with  the  character  of  the  Roman  communion,  which  is 
thus  demonstrated  to  be  the  Catholic  Church.  But  we  look  in  vain 
for  these  Notes  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  either  in  Scripture,  or 
in  the  history  of  the  Church.  Those  of  these  "Notes"  which 
are  indicated  in  the  Scripture  and  the  Niceno-Constantinopolitan 
Creed — e.  g.,  "unity,  holiness,  catholicity,  and  apostolicity,"  and 
several  others,  are  the  very  attributes  in  which  the  Eoman 
Communion  is  glaringly  deficient. 

§3.  Catholicity. 

The  first  note  named  by  Bellarmin  is  catholicity.  This  is 
indeed  a  characteristic  of  the  Church,  botli  visible  and  invisible. 
The  word  "  catholic "  was  not  in  the  earliest  creeds.  In  the 
symbols  of  Tertullian,  Jerome,  and  other  Occidental  creeds,  it 
was  simply  "holy  church."  But  it  is  found  in  the  ancient  Ori- 
ental creeds,  as  that  of  Jerusalem,  expounded  by  Cyril,  and  that 
of  Alexandria,  as  in  the  Epistle  of  Alexander,  Archbisliop  of 
Alexandria;  so  in  the  confession  of  Arius  and  his  party,  pre- 
sented to  Constantine,  and  in  both  the  creeds  delivered  by  Epi- 
phanius.  It  is  in  the  Nicene  and  Niceno-Constantinopolitan 
Creeds.  Many  soon  put  it  in  the  Latin  Creeds.  It  was  added 
to  that  of  Bufinus.  Augustin  has:  "  Credimus  et  sancfain  eccJe- 
siam,  ntique  cathoJicam :  We  believe  in  the  holy  Church,  certainly 
Catholic."  It  is  in  the  Creed  of  Eusebius  of  Gaul,  Peter  Chry- 
sologus,  Alcuin,  and  other  Latins;  and  it  is  in  all  modern  re- 
censions of  the  Creed,  as  incorpoi'ated  in  liturgies,  catechisms, 
and  the  like.  The  w^ord  indeed  is  not  found  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament; but  it  is  the  designation  of  the  Epistles  of  James, 
Peter,  Jude,  and  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  usually  rendered 
"general."    Pearson  says: 


228 


The  Church. 


This  catliolicisrn  of  the  Church  consisteth  generally  in  universality,  as  embrac- 
ing all  sorts  of  persons,  as  to  be  disseminated  through  all  nations,  as  compre- 
hending all  ages,  as  containing  all  necessary  and  saving  truths,  as  obliging  all 
conditions  of  men  to  all  kinds  of  obedience,  as  curing  all  diseases,  and  planting  all 
graces  in  the  souls  of  men. 

So  Cyril  explaius  this  note  of  the  Church,  and  correctly,  if 
the  language  is  duly  guarded.  But  the  x^rominent  idea  is  that 
of  universal  extension.  Catholicity  is,  moreover,  in  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Church,  as  it  is  adapted  to  all  nations,  kindreds,  peo- 
ples, and  tongues;  and  it  is  set  forth  in  prophecy  as  a  certain 
realization  in  the  future.  It  was  organized  to  embrace  the 
world,  and  it  shall  embrace  it.  "  And  the  kingdom  and  domin- 
ion, and  the  greatness  of  the  kingdom  under  the  Avhole  heaven, 
shall  be  given  to  the  i)eople  of  the  saints  of  the  Most  High, 
whose  kingdom  shall  be  an  everlasting  kingdom,  and  all  domin- 
ions shall  serve  and  obey  him."  (Dan.  vii.  27.  Cf.  Ps.  ii.  8; 
Mark  xvi.  15;  Luke  xxiv.  47.) 

McClintock  and  Strong  ("  Cyclopedia,"  Art.  Catholic)  say: 

In  the  primitive  Church  the  title  Catholic  came  into  use  at  an  early  period,  to 
distinguish  the  Ciiristian  Church  from  the  Jewish,  which  was  national,  while  the 
Christian  body  was  to  include  all  mankind.  At  a  later  period  it  was  used  to  dis- 
tinguish tiiose  who  adopted  the  so-called  heresies  within  the  Christian  Church 
from  tiie  body  of  believers  who  held  the  true  faith,  and  to  whom  alone,  and  to 
1i  whose  belief  the  term  Catholic  was  applied. 

Eusebius  ( "  Ecclesiastical  History,"  iv.  15)  gives  a  letter  from 
the  Church  at  Smyrnn,  containing  an  account  of  the  martyrdom 
of  Polycarp,  its  Bishop,  in  which  the  word  is  used  in  the  sense 
of  universal,  as  it  is  in  the  English  liturgy:  "The  Church  of  God 
at  Smyrna  to  that  of  Philometius,  and  to  all  j^arts  of  the  holy 
Catholic  Church  everywhere,  mercy,  etc.,  be  multix^lied."  So  in 
the  Stromata  (vii.)  of  Clement  of  Alexandria. 

The  Church,  therefore,  is  Avell  styled  Catholic,  both  as  it  is  vis- 
ible and  invisible.  As  it  is  invisible,  it  is  known  only  to  God; 
as  it  is  visible,  it  is  made  so  by  its  particular  constituencies. 
Every  member  of  it  may  call  himself  a  Catholic,  as  Pacianus 
(A.D.  372)  in  answer  to  Sempronian,  the  Novatian,  who  asked 
him  why  Christians  called  themselves  Catholics:  Christian  is 
my  name,  and  Catholic  my  surname;  the  one  is  my  title,  the  other 
my  character  or  mark  of  distinction."  So  every  particular 
Church  might  call  itself  a  Catholic  Church,  meaning  a  constit- 
uent of  the  visible  Church,  which  is  called  Catholic.    But  it  is 


• 


Notes  of  the  Church. 


229 


absurd  for  any  so-called  national  or  denominational,  connectional 
or  particular  Church  to  call  itself  "  the  Catholic  Church."  One 
knows  not  which  most  to  admire,  the  absurdity  or  the  arrogance 
of  such  an  assumption.    McClintock  and  Strong  well  say: 

It  is  bad  enoiigli  in  the  Chnrcli  of  Rome  to  make  this  claim  of  the  title  Catho- 
lic: it  is  still  worse  for  Protestants  to  concede  it.  The  result  of  this  concession,  in 
most  Protestant  countries,  is  that  common  people  have  really  no  conception  of 
tlie  true  use  of  the  word  Catholic.  Tiie  words  Papist,  Pai)al,  Eomanist,  are  all 
properly  applicable  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  imply  no  offensive  meaning,  as 
they  are  ail  legitimately  derived.  At  all  events,  the  Roman  should  always  be 
prefixed  to  Catholic,  if  the  latter  term  be  used  as  part  of  the  title  of  the  Church 
of  Rome. 

For  the  Roman  cr  any  other  communion  to  call  itself  "  the 
Catholic  Church  "  is  as  much  as  to  say  the  part  is  equal  to  the 
whole.    Barrow  (on  the  "  Pope's  Supremacy,"  iii.  201)  well  says: 

Divers  prevalent  bodies  did  assume  to  tiiemselves  the  name  of  Catholic,  and  the 
Roman  Church  particularly  hath  appropriated  that  word  to  itself,  even  so  as  to 
commit  a  bull,  implying  Rome  and  the  universe  to  be  the  .^ame  place;  and  the 
perpetual  canting  of  this  term  hath  been  one  of  the  most  effectual  charms  to  weak 
people.  "1  am  a  Catholic,  that  is,  a  universal;  therefore  all  I  hold  is  true" — 
this  is  their  great  argument. 

Papists  not  only  claim  that  their  Church  is  catholic  in  regard 
to  extension  and  exclusion,  but  also  in  regard  to  orthodox  belief. 
Old  Bishop  Bilson,  in  his  "True  Difference  between  Christian 
Subjection  and  Unchristian  Eebellion,"  takes  up  the  challenge 
of  the  Romanist,  "  What  one  point  of  oui;  religion  is  not  Catho- 
lic?" and  replies:  "  No  one  point  of  that  which  this  reader  hath 
refused  is  truly  catholic."  After  specifying  some  of  the  novel- 
ties of  popery,  he  says:  "These,  wdth  infinite  other  superstitions 
in  action  and  errors  in  doctrine,  we  deny  to  have  any  foundation 
in  the  Scriptures  or  confirmation  in  the  general  consent  or  use  of 
the  Catholic  Church."  We  recognize  no  doctrine  as  Catholic,  but 
that  whfch  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures:  "  the  faith  once  for  all 
delivered  to  the  saints."  Papists  would  do  well  not  to  insist 
upon  catholicity  as  a  note  of  the  Church,  as  by  so  doing  they 
are  in  danger  of  unchurching  their  own  communion. 

§4.  Antiquity. 

So  it  is  wdth  regard  to  antiquity.  Papists  contend  that  theirs 
is  the  oldest  Church,  and  that  it  is  therefore  the  true  Church. 
But  is  the  Church  of  Rome  the  oldest  Church?  Were  not  the 
Churches  of  J erusalem,  Antioch,  and  several  others  founded  be- 


230 


The  Church. 


fore  the  Church  of  Kome?  But  what  has  that  to  dcj  with  the 
question?  The  seven  Apocalyptic  Churches  were  founded  by 
the  apostles  or  apostolic  men;  but  several  of  them  became  cor- 
rupt in  faith  and  conduct,  and  their  candlesticks  have  long  since 
been  removed  out  of  their  places.  It  is  absurd  for  fallen 
Churches  to  set  up  the  claim  of  antiquity.  The  question  is,  not 
what  they  once  were,  but  what  are  they  now? 

Bellarmin  says:  "In  every  notable  change  in  religion  these  six 
things  can  be  discovered:  (1)  Its  author;  (2)  some  nev/  doctrine; 
(3)  the  time  in  which  it  began;  (4)  who  opposed  it;  (5)  the  place; 
(6)  who  were  the  persons  that  promoted  the  change."    We  heard 
Bishop  England  deliver  himself  in  a  similar  way  in  his  polemical 
discussion  in  the  Baltimore  Cathedral.    There  is  glaring  sophis- 
try in  all  this.    Suppose  vv-e  could  not  "  discern  "  all  these  "  six 
things,"  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  "notable  changes  in  religion  " 
for  which  the  papal  Church  more  than  any  other  is  distinguished, 
would  it  follow  from  this  that  they  were  not  changes,  not  nov- 
elties?   Suppose,  for  instance,  that  printing  were  unknown  and 
centuries  were  to  elapse,  and  it  was  forgotten  that  Pope  Pius  IX. 
decreed  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  in  1854  and 
the  infallibility  of  the  Pope  in  1870  as  dogmas,  which  before 
w^ere  only  opinions,  would  that  prove  that  tliey  had  been  dogmas 
from  the  beginning  of  Christianity?    Pope  Pius  lY.  in  1564 
added  twelve  articles  to  the  Apostles'  Creed.    These  articles  had 
been  introduced  at  various  times  and  by  various  men  and  meth- 
ods, but  they  w^ere  crystallized  into  a  symbolical  form  by  that  in- 
novation.   Are  we  to  profess  that  this  is  the  true  Catholic  faith, 
out  of  which  there  is  no  salvation,  because  we  may  not  be  able  to 
tell  when  every  one  of  these  additions  to  the  Apostles'  Creed  was 
first  broached,  who  promoted  and  who  opposed  it?    Is  it  not 
enough  if  we  can  show  that  not  one  of  these  twelve  articles  is 
contained  in  the  Scriptures?    Church  history  does  indeed  show 
the  genesis  of  all  these  articles,  how  they  were  evolved  from 
small  germs  of  error,  how  they  were  opposed,  how  they  made 
their  way  in  the  Bomish,  and  some  of  them  in  other  communions, 
and  that  not  one  of  them  can  lay  any  claim  to  antiquity,  if  by 
antiquity  is  meant  the  time  when  the  canon  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament was  made.    AVhen  the  question  was  asked  a  Protestant, 
"Where  was  your  religion  before  Luther?"  the  answer  was, 
"  In  the  Bible,  where  yours  never  was ! "    Any  particular  Church, 


• 


Notes  of  the  Church. 


231 


built  to-day  "ou  the  foundation  of  tlie  apostles  and  prophets, 
Jesus  Christ  being  the  chief  corner-stone,"  is  as  true  a  part  of 
the  holy  Catholic  Church  as  the  mother  Church  of  Jerusalem, 
even  if  she  had  retained  (which  she  has  not)  her  virgin  purity. 

§5.  Duration. 

So  of  duration.  Bellarmin  says:  "  The  Church  is  called  cath- 
olic, because  it  always  was  and  always  will  be,  according  to  Dan. 
ii.  44,  '  My  kingdom  shall  stand  forever.'  " 

Well,  what  of  that?  All  admit  that  the  Catholic  Church  will 
last  till  the  end  of  time.  "Upton  this  rock  will  I  build  my 
Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it,"  that 
is,  it  shall  never  become  extinct.  But  it  does  not  follow  from 
this  that  particular  Churches  may  not  become  corrupt  and  per- 
ish. Where  now  are  the  Churches  of  Ephesus,  Laodicea,  and 
others,  mentioned  with  high  honor  in  the  New  Testament? 
They  lost  their  first  love,  became  corrupt,  and  perished. 

But  says  Bellarmin: 

Before  the  time  of  Luther  there  were  in  the  world  only  these  religions:  Pagan- 
ism, Judaism,  Mohammedanism,  the  religion  of  the  Greeks,  Xestorianism,  tlie 
heresy  of  the  Hussites,  and  the  Roman  Church.  But  it  is  certain  that  the  true 
Church  of  Christ  was  found  in  none  of  these;  therefore  it  was  in  the  Roman 
Church;  otherwise  true  religion  perished  from  the  earth,  which  cannot  be. 

This  is  pure  fallacy.  If  by  the  true  Church  he  means  an  or- 
ganization untainted  by  error,  then  everybody  knows  that  no 
such  organization  can  be  traced  in  history,  and  therefore  "true 
religion  has  perished  from  the  earth."  If  there  be  no  true  re- 
ligion except  in  a  Church  untainted  with  error,  there  is  no  true 
religion  now  upon  earth.    Indeed,  there  never  has  been  any. 

In  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  in  the  best  Churches  which 
they  founded,  there  were  errors  in  doctrine  and  obliquities  in 
worship  and  morals.    The  Acts  aild  the  Epistles  record  them. 

But  these  organizations  were  Churches — true  branches  of  the 
one  Catholic  Church — as  are  the  various  organizations  now  ex- 
tant, including  the  most  corrupt  of  them;  the  Roman  and  the 
Greek  communions. 

We  need  not  refer  to  the  Waldenses,  that  "  ancient  stock  of  re- 
ligion"— as  Milton  calls  the  communion — which  was  in  existence 
before  the  Boman  apostasy,  and  needed  not  the  reformation  in 
the  time  of  Luther;  nor  to  the  Culdees;  nor  to  any  other  com- 
munions, which  continued  separate  from  the  Eoman  Church. 


232 


The  Chiu'ch. 


lu  the  darkest  times  God  had  a  people  on  the  earth;  they  were 
members  of  his  invisible  Church,  and  of  his  visible  Church,  too, 
for  in  all  the  different  Christian  communities  specified  by  Bel- 
larmin,  and  others  which  he  does  not  name,  were  the  Holy 
Scriptures  still  read  and  preached;  the  sacraments  were  admin- 
istered; all  the  essential  points  of  Christian  doctrine,  worship, 
and  morals — as  set  forth  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  and  the  Ten  Commandments— were  held;  though  in  many 
instances,  and  more  especially  in  the  Roman  Church,  with  many 
errors,  superstitions,  and  immoralities.  The  stream  of  Chris- 
tianity has  flowed  down  with  an  uninterrupted  current  through 
all  the  ages,  though  sometimes  sadly  discolored  by  foreign  afflu- 
ents, disported  by  winds,  divided  by  impediments,  absorbed  by 
deserts,  and  concealed  by  jungles;  but  it  has  flowed  on,  is  flow- 
ing, and  wdll  continue  to  flow  to  the  end  of  time. 

§  G.  Amplitude. 

Amplitude  is  another  of  Bellarmin's  notes,  which  he  says 
points  exclusively  to  the  Church  of  Rome. 

Here  is  another  sophism.  Amplitude  is  indeed  a  note  of  the 
Church,  but  more  in  prophecy  than  in  history.  What  is  ampli- 
tude but  catholicity  with  another  name?  We  have  seen  that,  ac- 
cording to  its  constitution  and  destiny,  the  Church  will  embrace 
the  whole  world.  But  it  has  never  done  so  yet,  though  the  gos- 
pel was  ijreached  throughout  the  known  world  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles.  (Col.  i.  6.)  But  Avhen  was  actual  amplitude  or  cath- 
olic extension  a  note  of  the  Church?  Was  it  in  the  days  of 
Noah  (Gen.  vi.-ix.)?  in  the  time  of  the  Psalmist  (Ps.  xvi.)?  in  the 
time  of  Elijah  (1  Kings  xix.  9-18)?  in  the  time  of  Malachi  (Mai. 
iii.)?  in  the  time  of  Christ,  when  his  followers  were  a  "little 
flock"  (Luke  xii.  32)?  in  the  times  of  the  iRi\\ers,—Athan(mus 
contra  wnndiiw?  in  the  dark  ages,  when  Mohammedanism  almost 
"  destroyed  God's  Asian  fold  "  and  superstition  deluged  the 
Western  Church?  Wlxat  kind  of  amplitude  has  the  Roman 
Church  at  this  day?  It  boasts  of  its  millions  of  adherents,  but 
the  great  bulk  of  them  are  no  better  than  heathens  or  infidels. 
There  are  good  men  among  them,  but  they  are  a  sad  minority. 
Indeed,  as  yet,  all  the  nominal  Christians  in  the  world  consti- 
tute but  a  small  flock,  compared  with  heathens,  Mohammedans, 
and  infidels,  who  comprise  three-fourths  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  globe.    But  is  this  the  test  of  truth? 


Notes  of  the  Church. 


233 


§7.  Episcopal  Succession. 

Episcopal  succession  is  claimed  by  Bellarmin  as  another  note 
of  tlie  Church.  But  this  is  claimed  by  all  the  Oriental  and 
African  Churches,  and  by  the  Anglican  Church  and  its  offshoots. 
It  is  thus  defined  by  Dr.  Hook,  an  eminent  Anglican: 

A  perfect  and  unbroken  transmission  of  the  original  ministerial  commission 
from  the  apostles  to  their  successors,  by  the  progression  and  perpetual  conveyance 
of  their  powers  from  one  race  of  bishops  to  another.  .  .  .  Such  then  is  unin- 
terrupted succession — a  fact  to  which  every  bishop,  priest,  and  deacon  in  the  wide 
world  looks  as  the  ground  of  validity  in  his  orders.  Without  this  all  distinction 
between  a  clergyman  and  a  layman  is  utterly  vain,  for  no  security  exists  that 
Heaven  will  ratify  the  acts  of  an  illegally  constituted  minister  on  earth.  With- 
out it  ordination  confers  none  but  humanly  derived  powers. 

In  this  explicit  and  arrogant  assumption  all  prelatical  Churches 
(except  the  Lutheran)  agree.  But  this  must  be  modified  by  two 
remarkable  facts:  (1)  Many  of  the  foremost  prelates  and  others  in 
those  communions  utterly  repudiate  the  arrogant  dogma;  (2) 
the  Anglican  Church  recognizes  the  true  episcopal  character  of 
all  the  Oriental,  African,  and  Eoman  Communions,  while  none 
of  them  recognize  the  true  episcopal  character  of  the  Anglican 
Church,  or  indeed  of  one  another.  But  of  this  boasted  prelat- 
ical succession — whether  Oriental,  Occidental,  or  Anglican— the 
Scripture  says  not  a  single  word.  AYe  look  in  vain  in  the  New 
Testament  for  the  staple  to  which  the  chain  is  to  be  affixed,  and 
for  any  precedent  or  precept  for  the  fabrication  of  the  links. 
Ecclesiastical  history,  alike  by  its  obscurity,  mendacity,  and 
veracity,  sets  aside  the  dogma  as  a  preposterous  fable. 

§  8.  Apostolical  Agreement. 

Apostolical  agreement  is  another  of  Bellarmin's  notes.  This 
is,  of  course,  a  note  of  the  Church.  Apostolicity  is  one  of  the 
four  notes  specified  in  the  Niceno-Constantinopolitan  Creed.  We 
are  not,  hoAvever,  to  infer  that  no  particular  society  of  Christians 
is  a  Church  which  does  not  in  every  particular  agree  with  the 
doctrines  taught  by  the  apostles.  If  their  writings  are  accepted 
in  good  faith,  and  there  is  the  purpose  to  conform  to  them,  it 
may  be  considered  a  Church,  though  erroneous  in  many  particu- 
lars. But  for  this  principle  the  Bomish  Communion  could  not 
be  considered  a  Church,  as  it  embodies  more  error  in  its  Creed 
than,  perhaps,  any  other  communion  that  bears  the  Christian 
name.    Pope  Pius  IV.  added  to  the  Creed  twelve  articles,  not  one 


234 


The  Church. 


of  which  is  found  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles.  The  late  Pope 
Pius  IX.  added  two  more  dogmas — the  immaculate  conception 
of  the  Virgin  and  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope.  AVhere  are  they 
inculcated  in  the  New  Testament?  Infallibility  in  vain.  Was 
not  Pope  Zephyrinus  a  Montanist?  Marcellinus  an  idolater? 
Liberius  an  Arian?  Anastasius  a  Nestorian?  Yigilius  a  Euty- 
chian?  Honorius  a  Monothelite  ?  Sylvester  a  magian?  John 
XX.  held  that  the  souls  of  the  righteous  will  not  see  God  till  the 
day  of  judgment;  and  John  XXIIL  taught  that  the  soul  dies 
with  the  body.    Wonderful  "  apostolical  agreement "  is  this. 

§  9.  Unity. 

Unity  is  very  properly  set  down  in  the  Constantinopolitan 
Creed  as  a  note  of  the  Church.  There  is  but  one  Church  of 
Christ,  as  there  is  but  one  Christ  who  is  its  Head,  and  one  Spirit 
that  informs  it  as  the  body  of  Christ.  But  the  Scripture  no- 
where speaks  of  an  external,  organic,  visible  unity.  The  idea 
is  absurd.  There  never  was  such  a  unity  since  the  apostles  and 
their  coadjutors  organized  Churches  apart  from  the  mother 
Church  of  Jerusalem,  It  Avas  perhaps  intended  that  all  the 
societies  in  a  city  and  its  suburbs  should  be  under  one  presby- 
terial  government,  and  it  is  perhaps  to  be  wished  that  that 
regime  could  be  restored.  But  the  New  Testament  never  speaks 
of  the  Church  of  a  province,  but  of  the  Churches.  They  were 
all,  indeed,  under  the  joint  superintendency  of  the  apostles,  who 
during  their  life  were  a  bond  of  union  to  all  the  Christian  socie- 
ties in  the  world.  But  no  provision  was  made,  as  none  was 
needed,  for  any  such  authoritative,  ecumenical  government, 
whether  of  pope  or  council.  It  is  enough  that  all  Christians 
are  united  to  Christ,  "built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles 
and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner- 
stone." (Eph.  ii.  20.)  The  only  unity  that  is  attainable  is  "the 
unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bonds  of  peace."  (Eph.  iv.)  Those 
who  unchurch  others  who  cannot  pronounce  their  Shibboleth — be- 
cause they  follow  not  with  them — are  the  last  men  to  talk  about 
unity:  they  ought  to  say  nothing  about  this  as  a  note  of  the 
Church;  by  their  arrogance  they  unchurch  themselves  rather 
than  those  they  seek  to  unchurch.  AYe  "call  no  man  master,  for 
one  is  our  Master,  even  Christ,  and  all  we  are  brethren."  (Matt, 
xxiii.  8.)  It  is  impossible  for  all  men  to  think  alike,  in  points  of 


Notes  of  ilie  Church. 


235 


doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship;  and  the  only  rule  that  can  be 
consistently  adopted  is  that  of  the  ancients:  "  In  essentials,  unity; 
in  non-essentials,  liberty;  in  all  things,  charity." 

Prelatists  tell  us  that  the  successional  episcopacy  is  the  bond 
of  union.  But  Dr.  Newman  retorts:  "Either  there  is  no  such 
sin  as  schism,  or  unity  does  not  lie  in  the  episcopal  form,  or  in 
episcopal  ordination."  A  child  can  see  that.  What  sort  of  visi- 
ble organic  unity  is  that  of  episcopal  communions  which  not 
only  decline  intercommunion,  but  anathematize  each  other  as 
fiercely  as  they  anathematize  non-episcopal  communions?  Moh- 
ler,  in  his  work  on  the  "Unity  of  the  Church,"  shows  by  what  log- 
ical steps  he  was  led  "  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Papacy,  on  the  basis 
of  visible  organic  union."    Even  Litton  adm.its: 

There  is,  of  course,  u  sense  in  which  tlic  aggregate  of  visible  Christian  socie- 
ties may  be  called  one  Church;  they  profess,  as  Pearson  observes,  the  same  faith, 
they  celebrate  the  same  sacraments,  they  acknowledge  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  in 
this  sense  there  is  a  visible  Catholic  Church.  But  it  is  obvious  that  a  unity  of  this 
kind  is  nothing  higher  than  that  which  subsists  between  the  monarchical  states  of 
Europe,  which  agree  in  being  founded  on  the  same  principles  of  government,  but 
are  otherwise  distinct  communities,  acknowledging  no  common  head  upon  earth. 
Similarly,  there  is  a  sense  in  which  Christ  may  be  called  the  Head  of  this  visible 
Catholic  Church.  lie  is  so,  not  immediately  and  by  direct  union,  but  on  account 
of  the  inseparable  connection  between  the  visible  and  the  true  Church,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  latter  being  not  to  be  looked  for  outside  the  pale  of  the  former. 

This  verges  on  self-contradiction;  in  avoiding  Scylla  there  is 
danger  of  running  into  Charybdis.  Surely  the  unity  of  the  visi- 
ble Church  is  something  higher  than  that  which  subsists  between 
monarchical  states;  and  the  headship  of  Christ  is  not  to  be  re- 
stricted to  "individual  members  of  visible  Churches;"  it  surely 
extends  to  them  in  their  corporate  capacity.  {Cf.  Matt,  xviii. 
20;  xxviii.  19,  20;  1  Cor.  xii.;  Eev.  i.;  ii.;  iii.;  Kcis  passim;  and 
Eph.  iv.,  which  Litton  does  not  satisfactorily  explain.) 

[Leaving  the  Scriptures,  we  lind  at  once  the  tendency  that  has  made  the  unity 
of  the  Church  a  prominent  question.  During  the  ante-Nicene  and  Patristic  ages 
generally  the  foundations  were  laid  of  a  doctrine  of  absolute  uniformity.  The 
growth  of  heresies  and  scliisms  was  the  first  occasion  of  this  very  early  idea  of  a 
mechanical  unity — these  two  words  becoming  very  soon  fixed  in  their  meaning  as 
follows:  Heresy  is  the  self-willed  choice  of  some  particular  error  and  consequent 
departure  from  the  Christian  Confession.  Every  Church  which  renounces  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity  is  out  of  the  unity  of  Christendom:  not  that 
it  must  necessarily  be  at  once  cut  off;  the  tribunal  is  an  invisible  one;  and  the 
excision  is  from  on  high.  As  to  the  outward  expression  of  unity,  the  violation  is 
Schism:  strife  within  the  community  itself,  separation  from  it,  whether  by  volun- 


236 


The  Church. 


tary  act  or  as  cast  out.  In  the  latter  case  there  may  be  a  justification  whicli  sliall 
clear  the  a])parent  breach  from  sinfulness.  But  in  tiie  Patristic  age  there  was  no 
thought  of  a  justifiable  schism.  Three  representative  men  may  be  cited  as  the 
leading  exponents  of  these  views  and  of  the  dijSerent  ways  in  which  they  were  main- 
tained. Ignatius,  an  Apostolical  Father  of  the  first  century,  laid  down  the  principle 
that  the  one  episcopate  was  the  only  bond  of  union — meaning,  however,  only  that  in 
every  Church  the  chief  minister  was  the  guarantee  of  order  as  against  schism  and 
of  sound  doctrine  as  against  lieresy.  Irenteus  in  the  second  century  made  the  One 
Church,  as  the  congregation  of  all  Churches  under  this  episcopal  government,  the 
only  organ  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  where  we  have  a  singular  combination  of  visible 
and  invisible  unity.  Cyprian  of  the  third  century  (250),  in  his  work  De  Unitate, 
pointed  to  Rome  as  the  center  of  unity,  though  rejecting  Roman  jurisdiction — a 
position  which  was  very  generally  assumed. 

The  further  development  of  the  principle  that  internal  unity  must  be  expressed 
by  external  uniformity  belongs  to  Ecclesiastical  History.  By  degrees  the  Roman 
bishop  of  bishops  assumed  to  be  to  the  wliole  Church  what  each  bishop  was  to  the 
individual  Church.  The  ecclesiastical  was  conformed  to  the  civil  order,  the 
Cjesar  of  a  temporal  universal  empire  must  have  for  his  counterpart  the  spiritual 
Csesar,  or  the  Vicar  of  Christ  as  the  center  of  unity  and  final  appeal.  Tlie  s})irit 
of  protest  against  this  began  in  the  East,  which  resented  both  the  Filioque  added 
to  the  xsicene  Creed  and  the  authority  by  which  it  was  added.  The  breach  be- 
tween Eastern  and  Western  Christendom  has  never  been  healed:  it  remains  as  a 
standing  protest  against  the  erroneous  doctrine  of  unity.  While  Rome  denounces 
the  Protestant  communities  as  out  of  the  pale  of  the  one  body  of  Christ,  the  Or- 
thodox Greek  Church  denounces  Rome  as  the  first  of  all  Protestant  dissenters, 
heretics,  and  schismatics.  In  the  West  the  Protestant  Reformation  utterly  re- 
jected the  theory  of  an  external  unity  as  held  by  both  communities,  whether 
[Roman]  Catholic  or  [Greek]  Orthodox. 

A  few  remarks  may  be  made  upon  modern  tendencies  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  note  of  unity  since  the  Reformation. 

(1)  It  is  generally  conceded  to  be  impracticable  to  aim  at  oneness  in  tlie  vis- 
ible Church  save  in  the  fundamentals  of  faith,  worship,  and  discipline.  It  must 
be  obvious  to  every  dispassionate  mind  that  there  has  never  been  since  the  times 
of  the  apostles  any  other  unity  than  that  which  God  alone  can  discern.  Eastern 
and  Western  Christendom  would  agree  that  there  has  been  none  such  since  the 
seventh  century;  and  each  despairs  of  the  restoration  of  union  save  on  terms 
which  the  other  cannot  accept.  Among  Protestant  communities  only  one  judg- 
ment ought  to  prevail  here.  There  are  found,  however,  certain  liierarchical  or 
High-church  enthusiasts  who  dream  of  a  unity  which  a  lineal  apostolical  succes- 
sion of  orders  gives  to  Eastern  and  Western  episcopal  communions.  But  this  is 
the  most  unreal  of  unrealties.  A  compromise  is  attempted  by  those  who,  whether 
Anglican  with  episcopacy,  or  Lutheran  without  it,  give  up  the  hope  of  a  univer- 
sal unity,  but  cling  to  that  expressed  by  national  Churches  in  every  land.  This  is 
the  religious  unity  of  race  or  nation  or  territory.  But  it  can  never  be  proved 
that  the  Head  of  the  Churcli  divided  liis  kingdom,  or  intended  that  it  should  be 
divided,  territorially.  The  Congregational  theory  which  admits  only  of  voluntary 
aggregation  of  Churches,  and  neitlier  has  nor  desires  any  guarantee  for  more  than 
that,  goes  to  an  extreme,  but  in  the  right  direction. 


Xotes  of  the  Church, 


237 


(2)  But  tliis  tends  to  the  modern  correction  of  the  notions  of  Heresy  and 
Schism.  There  are  some  important  principles  which  are  now  generally  accepted. 
These  two  violations  of  unity  generally  go  together:  the  aipeci^  or  heresy  being 
self-willed  choice  of  private  interpretation  in  opposition  to  Scripture,  and  the 
cxicfJ-ci  the  following  of  a  party.  Few  scliisms  can  be  named  which  liave  not  been 
the  result  of  doctrinal  error;  few  leading  heresies  wliich  have  not  issued  in 
schisms.  Here,  however,  there  is  a  distinction.  Heresy  can  never  be  perpetuated, 
but  the  result  of  schisms  may.  Ecclesiastical  schisms  maybe  taken  up  by  Divine 
wisdom  into  the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ — having  been  in  fact  not 
schism  in  the  sight  of  God,  or  soon  losing  the  taint.  Apparent  schism  may  be  the 
only  cure  of  heresy.  Many  minor  heresies  may  co-exist  with  holding  the  Head. 
But  where,  on  tiie  one  hand,  there  is  such  infidel  subtraction  from  the  faitii,  or, 
on  the  other,  such  superstitious  addition  to  it,  as  neutralize  the  fundamentals,  sei)- 
aration  may  be  inevitable  and  lawful.  Discipline  may  be  so  relaxed  or  perverted 
as  to  necessitate  separations  which  are  not  schismatical :  Dissent  and  Non-conform- 
ity are  not  necessarily  and  as  such  sinful.  Schism  maybe  the  sin  of  the  commu- 
nity left  as  well  as  of  the  community  leaving.  But  all  this  rises  to  the  higher 
principle  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Giver  of  life  corporate  as  well  as  individual. 
He  quickeneth  whom  He  will.  The  body  is  more  than  its  raiment:  any  such  act 
of  the  sovereign  Spirit  must  aim  at  the  more  effectual  growtli  of  the  Church.  He 
thus  i)revents  unity  from  degenerating  into  stagnant  uniformity.  He  calls  them 
his  people  that  were  not  a  people,  in  order  to  provoke  otlters  to  jealousy.  Lastly, 
whenever  the  Spirit  thus  goes  out  of  his  way  to  divide  existing  Ciiurches,  he  never 
fails  to  authenticate  his  own  acts:  as  Paul  among  the  apostles  was  able  to  authen- 
ticate his  vocation  and  work.  As  to  heresy,  or  self-willed  and  needless  schism,  it 
is  still  one  of  the  works  of  the  flesh:  condemned  of  itself. 

(3)  There  are  two  opposite  errors  on  the  whole  subject  which,  always  observa- 
ble, are  very  prominent  in  modern  times.  One  is  the  overvaluation  of  tlie  impor- 
tance of  unity,  as  uniformity.  This  is  rebuked  by  reason.  Scripture,  and  the  evi- 
dence of  the  fact  that  the  Holy  Ghost  does  administer  the  work  of  Ciirist  by  sects 
and  divisions.  Much  of  the  progress  of  the  Gospel,  and  many  of  its  most  glorious 
achievements  at  home  and  abroad,  may  be  traced  to  the  labors  of  Christian  So- 
cieties to  a  great  extent  independent  of  each  other.  But  undervaluation  of  it  is 
equally  wrong.  Though  variety  is  ordained  of  God,  the  nearer  to  uniformity,  or 
at  least  to  thorough  mutual  recognition,  the  estate  of  Christendom  can  be  made 
the  better  will  it  be  for  its  peace  and  dignity  and  prosperity.  I»  due  time  Christ, 
who  at  his  first  coming  made  both  one,  uniting  Jews  and  Gentiles,  will  l)lend  all 
communions  into  unity,  and  his  Church  shall  by  his  presence  be  in  all  its  mul- 
titude of  branches  made  perfect  in  one.*"] 

§  10.  Sanctity  of  Doctrine. 

Sanctity  of  doctrine  is  another  of  Bellarmin's  notes.  It  is  a 
good  one.  But,  as  a  J esuit,  he  ought  to  handle  it  warily.  There 
are  immoral  and  detestable  doctrines  charged  upon  the  Jesuits. 
If  the  charge  is  true— and  we  have  never  seen  it  successfully  re- 


Pope,  "  Compendium,"  etc  ,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  272-275. 


238 


The  Church. 


futed—this  note,  if  pressed,  would  prove  fatal  to  their  claims, 
not  only  that  their  Church  is  the  only  true  Church,  but  that  it 
is  any  part  of  the  true  Church  of  Christ,  all  of  whose  doctrines 
are  according  to  godliness.  Our  Article  well  says:  "  The  visible 
Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  which 
the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached."  All  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church  are  pure,  like  their  Divine  Author,  and  lead  to  nothing 
but  purity  of  heart  and  life  [never,  directly  or  indirectly,  incul- 
cating immorality,  or  suggesting  that  the  end  sanctifies  the 
means].  Thy  word  is  very  pure:  therefore  thy  servant  loveth 
it."    (Ps.  cxix.  140.) 

§11.  Efficacy  of  Doctrine. 

Efficacy  of  doctrine  is  another  very  good  note.  It  is,  in  brief, 
the  gospel,  which  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one 
that  believeth.  A  society  calling  itself  Christian  that  does  not 
so  wield  the  truth  as  to  convert  men,  "to  open  their  eyes,  and 
to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan 
unto  God,"  ought  not  to  be  considered  a  Church  of  Christ.  It 
may  have  a  name  to  live,  but  it  is  dead.  Look  abroad  upon 
Christendom  and  see  the  effects  produced  by  the  teaching  of  the 
respective  communities  which  call  themselves  Churches,  and  it 
will  be  easy  to  see  which  of  them  are  best  entitled  to  this  dis- 
tinction. 

§  12.  Holiness  of  Life. 

Holiness  of  life  is  another  of  Bellarrain's  notes.  We  do  not 
object  to  it.  The  Church  of  Christ  is  a  society  of  saints,  less  or 
more  matured  in  holiness,  less  or  more  commingled  with  hypo- 
crites and  mere  nominal  professors;  still  it  is  mainly  constituted 
of  saints.  The  field  is  a  wheat  field,  though  an  enemy  may  have 
sown  tares  among  the  w^heat.  But  such  examples  of  sanctitude 
as  are  found  in  Butler's  "Lives  of  the  Saints,"  and  other  hagiol- 
ogies  of  the  Bomisli  and  other  corrupt  Churches,  are  foreign 
from  the  subject.  It  is  revolting  to  our  common  sense  to  read- 
the  descriptions  f  most  of  them  fictitious)  of  their  puerile  per- 
formances, ascetic  acts  of  self-denial,  and  self-torture  worthy  of 
Indian  fakirs. 

[This  leads  to  the  consideration  f>f  two  currents  of  error  wliicli  tliis  Note  of  the 
Churcli  detects:  the  exaggeration  of  tlie  relative  and  of  the  absolute  sanctity  re- 
Kpectively. 

1.  As  to  the  former,  many  circumstances  have  had  the  effect  of  limiting  the 


* 

Notes  of  the  Church  239 

sanctity  of  the  body  to  its  outward  fellowship.  The  notion  of  an  inherent  virtue 
in  the  sacraments,  especially  when  these  sacraments  were  multiplied  so  as  to  hedge 
in  all  life,  tended  to  externalize  the  idea  of  religion  generally,  and  of  the  ordi- 
nances of  Christian  fellowship  in  particular.  So  also  the  early  and  unregulated 
alliance  of  Christianity  with  the  State  had  the  same  effect,  as  the  perversion  of 
what  was  in  itself  not  necessarily  ev'il.  Whether  the  developed  Eoman  theory, 
that  the  Church  is  investexl  with  the  supreme  authority  over  the  world,  or  the 
Erastian,  that  it  is  only  an  organ  of  the  State,  or  the  Latitudinarian,  that  the 
Church  and  State  are  several  aspects  of  the  same  thing,  [be  held]  the  evidence  of 
fact,  multiplied  into  endless  instances,  goes  to  prove  that  the  union,  as  it  has 
been  generally  seen  in  Christendom,  has  always  had  this  evil  issue.  Neglect  of 
discipline,  one  of  the  worst  results  of  bringing  into  too  close  relations  the  world 
and  the  Church,  has  tended  the  same  way.  The  Lord's  Take  iha^c  things  hence! 
gave  a  law  and  established  a  precedent  too  soon  forgotten.  The  illustrations  of 
this  are  endless,  but  they  carry  us  too  deeply  for  our  present  purpose  into  eccle- 
siastical history. 

2.  The  internal  sanctity  lias  sometimes  been  undervalued.  Some  schisms  in 
the  early  Church — Montanism  in  Phrygin^  Novatianism  in  Rome,  Donatism  in 
Africa — were  the  result  of  undue  rigor  in  rooting  out  the  tares;  the  extremest 
fanaticism  was  the  consequence.  In  more  recent  times  Puritanism,  whether  on 
the  Continent  or  in  England,  has  jMished  its  high  principle  too  far.  Hence  Mod- 
ern Congregationalism,  its  lineal  descendant  and  representative  in  this  country, 
counts  no  sanctity  of  the  external  Church  as  valid  to  establish  a  Christian  char- 
acter or  availing  for  membership  without  the  profession  of  conscious  faith.  The 
.Baptists  go  farther,  and  refuse  to  admit  that  the  dedication  of  children  to  God  in 
baptism  confers  on  them  any  even  external  relation  to  the  Church  as  holy.  This, 
at  least,  is  their  principle  when  carried  to  its  issues. 

3.  The  true  theory  seems  to  be  that  which  aims  at  the  medium. 

(1)  All  who  approve  themselves  believers  in  Christ,  and  who,  whether  as 
adults  or  as  children,  are  baptized,  belong  to  the  external  body,  and  are  entitled 
to  all  its  privileges.  Due  respect  to  the  outward  and  visible  Church  requires  the 
recognition  of  all  baptized  and  consistent  members  of  it,  without  ctemanding  per- 
sonal testimony  of  conscious  experience.  But  the  internal  sanctity  of  the  fellow- 
ship has  its  rights.  The  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's-supper,  the  seal  of  the  com- 
niunion  of  saints,  and  their  note  of  profession  among  men,  must  be  guarded  with 
care,  its  approaches  being  fenced  in  every  possible  way  suggested  by  pastoral  vig- 
ilance and  mutual  watchfulness.  In  some  manner  communicants  ought  to  be  ex- 
amined and  approved  one  by  one.  » 

(2)  The  method  of  accomplishing  this  has  varied  with  every  age  and  almost 
with  every  community.  By  many  of  the  later  national  Churches  it  has  been  too 
often  entirely  neglected:  public  warnings  and  confessions  being  only  to  a  slight 
degree  re-enforced  by  private  investigation.  The  class-meeting  among  the  Meth- 
odists is  their  method  of  meeting  one  of  the  greatest  difficulties  of  the  times.  It 
does  not  profess  to  im-^ose  a  new  condition  of  membership  in  the  Christian  Church. 
It  is  onlv  one  out  of  many  forms — certainly  the  most  wide-spread  and  permanent 
— which  the  Ecclesiola  in  Ecclesia,  or  the  society  within  the  Church,  has  assumed. 
No  religious  community  has  long  maintained  its  vigor  and  purity  without  some 
such  expedient.    This  one  in  particular  honors  the  Church's  note  of  external 


240 


The  Church 


sanctity  by  admitting  freely  every  anxious  applicant  on  the  sole  condition  that  he 
as  a  baptized  member  of  the  Churcli  of  Christ  is  desirous  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to 
come  and  to  find  salvation  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  It  brings  everyone  under  pas- 
toral supervision,  direct  or  indirect:  indirect,  as  the  leaders  of  these  classes  are 
themselves  part  of  the  minister's  flock;  and  direct,  inasmuch  as  these  little  com- 
panies are  under  the  discipline  of  a  quarterly  visitation.  This  institution  pro- 
vides the  means  of  mutual  social  edification,  in  addition  to  the  general  means  of 
grace,  and  thus  does  much  to  promote  both  tiie  external  and  the  internal  sanctity 
of  the  community:  the  external,  because  it  tends  to  give  more  reality  and  dignity 
to  the  outward  fellowship  of  the  Christian  Church;  the  internal,  because  it  brings 
all  the  members  under  the  influence  of  an  edifying  mutual  exhortation  and  prayer. 
Apart  from  its  modern  name,  this  form  of  fellowship  may  be  traced  almost  [or 
quite]  up  to  the  times  of  the  apostles.*] 

§13.  Miracles. 

Bellarrain  makes  miracles  another  note  of  the  Church.  We 
make  it  also  a  note  of  the  Church.  We  do  not  see  how  the 
Church  could  have  been  founded  without  miracles.  Without 
arguing  in  a  vicious  circle  we  can  prove  the  miracles  by  the 
Church,  and  the  Church  by  the  miracles.  Nothing  in  history  is 
better  authenticated  than  the  miracles  wrought  by  Christ  and 
his  apostles.  Their  miracles  attested  their  divine  legation  and 
the  truth  of  the  doctrines  they  preached,  and  established  on  a 
permanent  basis  the  Church  which  they  founded.  We  have  no 
other  use  for  miracles;  hence  no  miracles  have  been  wrought 
since  the  Church  was  founded  by  the  apostles  and  their  imme- 
diate successors.  Scarcely  any  thing  does  more  to  discountenance 
the  claims  of  the  Eomanists  to  be  a  true  branch  of  the  Church 
— not  to  say  "the  Catholic  Church" — than  the  lying  wonders 
which  in  every  age  of  the  world  they  have  put  forth  for  miracles. 
These  "  pious  frauds  "  are  without  number.  Bomish  literature 
teems  with  them.  Their  falsehood  has  been  exposed  a  thousand 
times.  No  matter;  the  miserable  lies  are  repeated,  until  even  the 
priests  almost  believe  their  own  falsehoods.  It  is  scandalous,  im- 
pious, damnable.  Just  to  think  of  popes  and  prelates  pretending 
to  liquefy  the  blood  of  St.  Januarius,  to  bring  fire  from  heaven, 
to  heal  the  sick  by  a  word  or  touch,  to  change  a  wafer  into  the 
body,  blvood,  soul,  and  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ!  It  de- 
mands the  utmost  charity  to  allow  such  a  communion,  sanction- 
ing lies  and  frauds  so  prodigious,  to  have  any  part  or  lot  in  the 
matter  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  As  it  could  not  be  conceived 
how  two  Roman  augurs  could  meet  and  look  one  another  in  the 

Poj>e,  "Compendium,"  etc..  Vol.  III.,  f»p.  277-279. 


Notes  of  the  Church. 


241 


face  without  smiling  at  tlie  frauds  they  were  enacting,  so  may 
it  bo  said  of  Roman  prelates  and  priests  who  palm  all  this 
jugglery  upon  the  besotted,  hoodwinked  people  for  miracles, 
stupendous  acts  wrought  by  the  power  of  God. 

§  14.  Prophecy. 

Prophecy  is  another  of  Bellarmin's  notes.  But  prophecy  is  a 
note  of  the  Church  only  as  miracles  are  a  note.  The  Church 
was  organized  as  predicted ;  the  Spirit  of  prophecy  was  poured 
out  upon  the  first  believers;  some  of  them  uttered  predictions 
w^hich  were  put  on  record  in  the  New  Testament,  for  the  au- 
thentication of  the  faith  and  the  excitation  of  the  hope  of  the 
Church;  and  there  the  matter  ends.  The  Spirit  of  prophecy  was 
not  needed  after  the  apostolic  age,  and  it  was  not  imparted.  It 
is  absurd  and  impious  for  any  one — Papist,  Irvingite,  Mormon,  or 
any  other — to  claim  the  powder  of  foretelling  future  events.  It  is 
easy  enough  to  put  this  to  the  test.  There  never  has  been  pope, 
prelate,  priest,  or  saint  who  could  predict  a  single  contingent 
event,  any  more  than  he  could  raise  the  dead.  Let  the  infalli- 
ble pope  tell  us  how  his  temporal  power,  for  instance,  shall  be 
restored,  and  then,  if  his  vaticination  come  true,  we  may  concede 
that  the  spirit  of  prophecy  may  be  in  the  Vatican,  if  nowhere 
else. 

§  15.  Admission  of  Adversaries. 

Admission  of  adversaries  is  another  of  Bellarmin's  notes. 
This  is  very  ambiguous.  lufidels  generally  admit  that  Protest- 
ants comform  more  nearly  to  the  Scriptures  than  the  Papists. 
Few  of  them  would  seek  the  true  Church  of  Christ  in  the  Rom- 
ish communion.  Thousands  have  renounced  Christianity  alto- 
gether becar^ge  in  Romish  countries  it  is  identified  with  the 
Romish  Church. 

Papists,  iudeed,  try  to  make  capital  out  of  their  own  arro- 
gance and  exclusiveness.  Because,  forsooth,  Protestants,  in  their 
liberality,  are  willing  to  admit  that  the  Romish  Communion 
may  be  a  true  Church,  though  corrupt,  while  the  latter  denies 
that  Protestants  are  any  part  of  the  Catholic  Church,  therefore 
they  are  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  and  heathens  all  beside!  A 
fine  premium  is  this  on  arrogancy  and  pride.  And  yet  this 
transparent  sophistry  beguiles  thousands  of  simple  souls. 
16  Vol.  11. 


242 


The  Church. 


§  IG.  Unhappy  End  of  Adversaries. 

The  unhappy  end  of  adversaries  is  another  of  Bellarmin's 
notes.  He  borrowed  this  from  the  Fathers.  We  cannot  depend 
upon  their  statements  concerning  the  deaths  of  the  ancient  per- 
secutors of  the  Church.  Christ  and  his  apostjes  never  put  this 
forward  as  a  criterion  of  the  truth.  Christ  suffered  an  ignomin- 
ious and  cruel  death;  so  did  most  of  the  apostles;  so  did  thou- 
sands of  primitive  Christians  under  Pagan  persecutions;  so  did 
thousands  of  the  best  men  that  ever  lived  under  Papist  persecu- 
tions. When  Charles  II.  twitted  Milton  with  his  blindness  as 
a  judgment  on  him  for  taking  part  with  regicides,  he  reminded 
the  dissolute  monarch  that  his  royal  father  lost  not  his  eyes 
merely,  but  his  head.    But  it  is  useless  to  dwell  on  this  note. 

§  17.  Temporal  Felicity. 

The  last  note  Bellarmin  gives  is  temporal  felicity.  How 
this  agrees  with  the  Beatitudes  and  the  repeated  assurances  of 
Christ  and  the  apostles  that  in  the  world  his  followers  were  to 
have  tribulation  and  suffer  the  loss  of  all  things,  we  cannot 
very  w^ell  see.  There  are,  indeed,  glowing  predictions  of  peace 
and  prosparity,  spiritual  and  temporal,  in  the  latter-day  glory 
of  the  Church,  commonly  called  the  Millennium;  but  how  does 
the  tem])oral  felicity  of  that  future  time  point  out  to  us  the  true 
Cburch  when  it  is  pressing  up  through  great  tribulation,  as  it 
has  been  during  the  greater  part  of  its  history? 

If  the  reference  be  to  the  bearing  of  the  Church  upon  the 
temporal  welfare  of  those  who  come  under  its  influence,  why 
then,  of  course,  it  must  be  j^ronounced  most  beneficial.  But 
compare  the  influence  exerted  by  the  Church  in  Papist  countries 
and  that  exerted  by  it  in  Protestant  countries,  and  any  one  can 
see  at  a  glance  that  upon  this  basis  the  latter  has  far  more  rea- 
son to  consider  itself  the  true  Church  than  the  former.  It  is 
proper  to  state  that  Tournely,  Bailly,  and  other  modern  Koman- 
ists  repudiate  this  note,  "temporal  prosperity,"  and  also  that 
of  the  "unhappy  end  of  adversaries,"  as  well  they  may. 

^  18.  Conclusion. 
We  may  well  be  content  with  the  notes  or  characteristics  of 
the  Church,  as  set  forth  in  this  article.    The  Church  is  a  congre- 
gation of  faithful  men— that  is,  a  universal  society  of  Christians 
which  is  visible,  because  it  has  its  particular  organizations  and 


Notes  of  ilie  Church. 


243 


assemblies.  In  this  society  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached — 
that  is,  the  truths  contained  in  the  Bible  are  proclaimed  by  men 
set  apart  for  this  work,  whose  duty  it  is  to  expound  and  enforce 
the  truths  thus  proclaimed:  there  maybe — there  will  certainly  be 
— less  or  more  error  mixed  in  their  teaching;  but  this  will  not 
prove  that  they  do  not  belong  to  the  Church,  while  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  the  gospel  are  inculcated  by  them.  In  this 
society,  too,  the  sacraments  are  duly  administered,  according  to 
Christ's  ordinance.  There  may  be  errors  of  defect  or  excess  in 
the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  but  if  all  those  things  that 
of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same  are  retained  we  may  not 
deny  a  place  in  the  Church  to  those  who  thus  administer  them, 
or  to  those  who  receive  the  sacraments  thus  administered. 

Thus  if  water  be  applied  to  a  proper  subject  to  initiate  him 
into  the  Church,  and  to  bring  him  under  covenant  obligations, 
and  secure  to  him  covenant  blessings,  we  may  consider  it  the  sac- 
rament of  baptism;  though  there  may  be  some  variation  or  im- 
perfection or  superstition  in  the  form  and  mode.  So  if  bread 
and  \vine  be  reverently  eaten  and  drunk  in  remembrance  of  the 
death  of  Christ,  we  may  consider  it  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's- 
supper,  though  there  be  superstitious  additions  to  this  simple 
and  solemn  rite. 

There  is  one  difficulty  involved  in  the  premises.  During  the 
Dark  Ages  the  E-oraish  Church  gradually  withdrew  the  cup  in 
this  sacrament  from  the  laity,  and  the  Councils  of  Constance  and 
Trent  in  the  fifteen tli  and  sixteenth  centuries  denied  it  to  them 
by  a  positive  law,  enforced  by  the  usual  synodal  curses. 
Whether  this  "half-communion,"  as  it  is  called,  can  be  consid- 
ered a  sacrament  is  a  question.  AYine  is  present  and  conse- 
crated and  drunk  by  the  officiating  minister,  though  not  by  the 
people.  The  ordinance,  though  thus  mutilated,  is  celebrated  to 
show  forth  the  death  of  Christ;  but  can  it  be  said  it  has  "all 
those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same?  "  Chris- 
tians are  to  drink  the  cup,  as  well  as  to  eat  the  bread,  "  accord- 
ing to  Christ's  ordinance  "  and  the  custom  of  the  apostles  and 
primitive  Church,  as  the  Councils  of  Constance  and  Trent  ex- 
plicitly admit. 

The  question  is  very  perplexing.  Glad  indeed  are  we  that  we 
have  not  to  establish  our  claim  to  a  part  in  the  visible  Church 
with  such  a  weight  resting  upon  us.    We  do  not  recognize  those 


244 


The  Church. 


societies  that  repudiate  the  sacraments  as  Christian  Churches, 
though  we  do  not  exclude  their  members  from  salvation.  So  we 
do  not  hold  fellowship  with  Aquarians,  who  substitute  water  for 
wine  in  this  ordinance.  Yet  we  do  recognize  the  Eomish  Com- 
munion as  a  part  of  the  visible  Church,  notwithstanding  this 
serious  defect,  to  say  nothing  of  the  superstitions  connected  with 
their  mass,  as  they  call  this  sacrament.  We  confess  that  charity 
is  consulted  more  than  logic,  or  perhaps  consistency,  in  reaching 
this  conclusion. 


PART  II. 


ARTICLE  XIV. 

Of  Purgatory. 

The  Bomish  doctrine  concerning  imrgatorij^  pardons^  worshping 
and  adoration^  as  well  of  images  as  of  relics,  and  also  invocation  of 
saints,  is  a  fond  thing,  vainly  invented,  and  grounded  upon  no  war- 
rant  of  Scripture,  hut  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God. 

Introduction. 

This  is  tlie  same  as  Article  XXII.  of  the  Anglican  Confession, 
save  that  the  word  "rather,"  before  repugnant,  is  omitted.  The 
Twenty-third  Article  of  the  Confession  in  King  Edward's  reign 
had  "the  doctrine  of  the  school-authors,"  as  it  had  not  then 
crystallized  so  fully  into  a  Romish  doctrine  as  afterward.  The 
Edwardine  article  also  had  "  perniciously  repugnant." 

The  title  of  the  article  seems  to  give  prominence  to  purga- 
tory; but  the  compilers  were  not  very  precise  in  matters  of  this 
sort.    It  is  enough  that  purgatory  comes  first  in  order. 

(245) 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  ROMISH  DOCTRINE  OF  PURGATORY. 

§  1.  The  Doctrine  as  Defined  by  Councils  and  Theologians. 

The  Eomish  doctrine  concerning  jjurgatory  is  thus  set  forth 
by  the  Council  of  Florence: 

That  if  true  penitents  depart  in  the  love  of  God,  before  tliey  have  satisfied  for 
their  sins  of  omission  or  commission  by  fruits  of  repentance,  their  souls  go  to 
purgatory  to  be  purged. 

The  Council  of  Trent,  in  its  twenty-fifth  session,  says: 

Since  the  Catholic  Church,  instructed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  sacred  writ- 
ings and  the  ancient  tradition  of  the  Fathers,  hath  taught  in  holy  councils,  and 
lastly  in  this  ecumenical  synod,  that  there  is  a  purgatory;  and  that  the  souls  de- 
tained there  are  assisted  by  the  suffrages  of  the  faithful,  but  especially  by  the  ac- 
ceptable sacrifice  of  the  altar;  this  holy  synod  commands  all  bishops  diligently  to 
endeavor  that  the  wholesc)me  doctrine  concerning  purgatory  delivered  to  us  by 
venerable  Fathers  and  sacred  councils  be  believed,  held,  taught,  and  everywhere 
preached  by  Christ's  faithful. 

In  the  sixth  session  the  thirteenth  canon  reads  as  follows: 

If  any  one  shall  say  that  after  the  reception  of  the  grace  of  justification  the  guilt 
is  so  remitted  to  the  penitent  sinner,  and  the  penalty  of  eternal  punishment  de- 
stroyed, that  no  penalty  of  temporal  punishment  remains  to  be  paid,  either  in  this 
world  or  in  the  future  in  purgatory,  before  the  access  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
can  be  open;  let  him  be  accursed. 

The  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  says: 

In  the  fire  of  purgatory  the  souls  of  just  men  are  cleansed  by  a  temporary  pun- 
ishment, in  order  to  be  admitted  into  their  eternal  country,  into  which  nothing  de- 
filed entereth. 

The  Douay  Catechism  contains  the  following: 

Q.  Whither  go  such  as  die  in  venial  sin,  or  not  having  fully  satisfied  for  the 
punishment  due  to  their  mortal  sins?  A.  To  purgatory,  till  they  have  made  full 
satisfaction  for  them,  and  then  to  heaven. 

Purgatory  is,  with  the  Eomanists,  a  place  as  well  as  a  state. 

They  have  five  receptacles  for  departed  spirits:  heaven,  Jimhus 

patnwt,  limhus  infantum,  purgatory,  and  hell. 

Dens,  a  high  authority  among  Eomanists,  has  the  following: 
Q.  Where  is  purgatory?    A.  The  ordinary  place  of  purgatory,  which  properly 

and  commonly  is  understood  by  that  name,  is  under  the  earth,  and  adjoining  to 
(246) 


The  Bomish  Doctrine  of  Pur  gator  i/.  247 


hell.  But  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  thinks  that  souls  are,  in  extraordinary  cases,  purged 
out  of  tins  place.  "Some,"  he  says,  "are  punished  in  different  places,  either  for 
the  instruction  of  the  living  or  the  benefit  of  the  dead,  that  their  punishment  being 
known  to  the  living  may  be  mitigated  by  the  suffrages  of  the  Church."  And  thus 
T^ope  Gregory  (lib.  iv.  of  his  "Dialogue,"  c.  40)  produces  an  example  of  the  soul  of 
Paschasius,  which  was  purged  in  the  baths. 

Dens  says  the  punishment  is  twofold:  what  they  lose,  and 
what  they  feel,  the  latter  being  by  fire,  by  which  the  Romish  di- 
vines generally  understand  natural  fire.  Aquinas  says  it  ex- 
ceeds any  punishment  in  this  life.  Bonaventure  and  Bellarmin 
say  that  the  greatest  punishment  in  purgatory  exceeds  any  in 
this  life,  though  the  least  punishment  there  is  not  greater  than 
the  greatest  on  earth.  Its  duration  is  indefinite;  it  maybe  short- 
ened by  masses,  etc. 

AVesley  copied  into  his  journal,  August  30,  1738,  the  following 
notice  posted  on  the  door  of  a  cathedral: 

A  Full  Release  for  the  Poor  Souls  in  Purgatory. 
His  Papal  Holiness,  Clement  XII.  hath  this  year  1738,  on  the  7th  of  August, 
most  graciously  privileged  the  Catiiedral  Church  of  St.  Christopher  in  Mentz;  so 
that  every  priest,  as  well  secular  as  regular,  who  will  read  mass  at  an  altar  for  the 
soul  of  a  Christian  departed,  on  any  holy  day,  or  any  day  within  the  octave  there- 
of, or  on  two  extraordinary  days,  to  be  appointed  by  the  ordinary,  of  any  week  in 
the  year,  may  each  time  deliver  a  soul  out  of  the  fire  of  purgatory. 

Roman  Catholic  works  abound  with  such  cases,  and  reports  of 
souls  tormented  in  the  fires  of  purgatory,  crying  out  for  deliver- 
ance, and  through  the  suffrages  of  their  friends  on  earth  step- 
ping out  of  purgatory  into  heaven.  Purgatorial  societies  are 
formed,  the  members  of  which  pay  certain  sums  statedly  to  pay 
for  masses  to  be  said  for  the  deliverance  of  the  poor  souls  suf- 
fering in  purgatory.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  all  Papists  be- 
lieve these  lying  stories,  though  certified  by  popes,  prelates,  and 
priests.  But  every  Papist  is  bound  to  believe  there  is  a  pur- 
gatory, and  that  the  souls  in  purgatory  are  relieved  by  their 
friends  on  earth,  as  it  is  thus  set  forth  in  the  Creed  of  Pope 
Pius  IV.:  "  I  constantly  hold  that  there  is  a  purgatory,  and  that 
the  souls  detained  therein  are  helped  by  the  suffrages  of  the 
faithful." 

§2.  Alleged  Scriptural  Proofs. 

Romanists  attempt  to  prove  their  doctrine  of  purgatory  by 
Scripture,  the  Fathers,  Councils,  miracles,  and  reason. 

The  proofs  which  they  adduce  from  Scripture  are  the  follow- 


248 


Punjatorijj  Prnxlom,  Image-worship^  etc. 


ing:  Isa.  xxii.  14:  *'  Surely  this  iniquity  shall  not  be  purged  from 
you  till  ye  die."  They  say  this  implies  that  it  would  be  jjurged 
from  them  after  death.  It  does  no  such  thing;  but  if  it  did,  it 
would  not  prove  that  there  was  a  purgatory.  The  text  merely, 
asserts  that  the  profligates  spoken  of  by  the  prophet  were  so  in- 
corrigibly bad  that  their  case  was  hopeless.  They  were  living  in 
mortal  sin  and  would  die  in  it,  and  Papists  themselves  say  there 
is  no  purgatory,  and  no  pardon  after  death  for  such  sinners.  A 
thousand  texts  of  this  sort  would  jjrove  nothing  to  the  purpose. 

2  Mace.  xii.  44,  45:  *'For  if  he  had  not  hoped  that  they  that 
were  slain  should  have  risen  again,  it  had  been  superfluous  and 
vain  to  pray  for  the  dead.  And  also  in  that  he  perceived  that 
there  was  great  favor  laid  up  for  them  that  died  godly.  It  was  a 
holy  and  good  thought;  whereupon  he  made  a  reconciliation  for 
the  dead,  that  they  might  be  delivered  from  sin."  How  often  do 
Homisli  priests  cite  this  passage  on  formal  occasions — All-souls- 
day,  etc. !  But  this  is  no  Scripture.  It  is  found  in  one  of  the 
most  worthless  books  of  the  Apocrypha,  and  is  utterly  unworthy 
of  notice.  But  confused  and  uncanonical  as  is  this  account,  it 
does  not  prove  a  purgatory.  It  says  nothing  about  purgatory. 
According  to  this  record,  some  of  the  Jews  who  fell  in  battle 
were  found  to  have  concealed  about  them  "things  consecrated  to 
the  idols  of  the  Jamnites,"  this  being  "the  cause  wherefore  they 
were  slain:  "  whereupon  Judas  made  a  collection  of  two  thousand 
drachms  of  silver,  to  send  to  Jerusalem  to  offer  a  sin-off'ering, 
"doing  therein  very  well  and  honestly,"  says  the  writer,  "in 
that  he  was  mindful  of  the  resurrection."  Here  is  not  a  word 
about  purgatory.  He  made  an  ofl'ering  and  offered  prayer  for 
these  sinners  that  they  might  be  delivered  from  sin,  and  have 
part  in  the  resurrection  of  the  just.  He  had  no  authority  and  no 
Scripture  jjrecedent  for  this;  and  it  affords  no  authority  or  prec- 
edent for  purgatory  and  prayers  for  the  dead,  as  taught  by 
Rome;  for  these  idolaters  died  in  mortal  sin,  and  those  who  die 
in  mortal  sin  do  not  go  to  purgatory,  but  to  hell.  They  must  be 
hard  run  to  cite  this  passage  as  a  proof-text  for  purgatory. 

Matt.  V.  25,  26:  "Agree  with  thine  adversary  quickly,  while 
thou  art  in  the  way  with  him ;  lest  at  any  time  the  adversary  de- 
liver thee  to  the  judge,  and  the  judge  deliver  thee  to  the  officer, 
and  thou  be  cast  into  prison.  Yerily  I  say  unto  thee,  thou  shalt 
by  no  means  come  out  thence,  till  thou  hast  paid  the  uttermost 


The  Romish  Doctrine  of  Purgatory. 


249 


farthing."  It  is  remarkable  that  this  text  is  not  only  cited  by 
Eomanists  for  their  purgatory,  but  also  by  Universalists  for  their 
hell-redemption,  and  by  some  of  the  orthodox  for  eternal  pun- 
ishment. But  as  Davidson  says:  "AVhen  the  parable  in  Luke 
(xii.  58,  59)  is  compared  we  see  that  it  has  no  reference  to  the 
future  state,  but  to  a  suit  in  a  court  of  justice."  The  language 
is  proverbial.  A  litigious  spirit  is  not  only  contrary  to  the  gen- 
ius of  Christianity,  but  it  involves  its  possessor  in  many  evils 
which  may  be  averted  by  the  exercise  of  a  pacific,  yielding 
temper.  Better  sacrifice  some  of  our  rights  than  by  an  overstiff- 
ness  exasperate  the  feeling  of  an  adversary.    (Cf.  verses  38-42.) 

Matt.  xii.  32:  "Whosoever  speaketh  against  the  Holy  Ghost 
it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world,  neither  in  the 
world  to  come."  From  this  Romanists  infer  that  some  sins  will  be 
forgiven  in  purgatory.  But  "the  world  to  come"  does  not  mean 
purgatory.  If  it  does  not  mean  the  Christian  dispensation  as 
contrasted  wdth  the  Jewish,  it  simply  means  the  future  state. 
The  language  is  a  strong  periphrasis,  meaning  it  shall  never  be 
forgiven:  Mark  and  Luke,  writing  for  Gentiles,  use  plain  lan- 
guage instead  of  the  Hebrew  idiom,  "Hath  never  forgiveness, 
but  is  in  danger  of  eternal  damnation;"  "it  shall  not  be  for- 
given." According  to  the  Eomisli  theory  sins  are  punished  in 
purgatory,  not  pardoned! 

1  Cor.  iii.  13-15:  "Every  man's  work  shall  be  made  manifest; 
for  the  day  shall  declare  it,  because  it  shall  be  revealed  by  fire; 
and  the  fire  shall  try  every  man's  work  of  what  sort  it  is.  If  any 
man's  work  abide  which  he  hath  built  thereupon,  he  shall  receive 
a  reward.  If  any  man's  work  shall  be  burnt,  he  shall  suffer  loss; 
but  he  himself  shall  be  saved;  yet  so  as  by  fire."  Here  too  the 
Universalists  find  hell-redemption  where  Papists  find  the  fire 
of  purgatory  and  deliverance  from  it.  But  Peter  de  Soto,  a  fa- 
mous Eomanist,  sees  no  purgatory  here.  He  says:  "It  is  not 
persons,  but  vain  doctrines,  called  wood,  hay,  stubble,  which 
some  well-meaning  but  mistaken  teachers  add  to  the  true  that 
shall,  on  the  day  of  judgment,  be  tried  by  fire  and  be  burned, 
and  themselves  shall  hardly  escape,  even  as  one  escapeth  out  of 
the  fire."  The  reference,  however,  may  be  to  persons.  The 
apostle  warns  ministers  not  to  introduce  unworthy  persons  into 
the  Church,  as  such  would  not  stand  the  test  of  persecution,  the 
fire  which  would  try  every  man's  work.    Though  "  well-meaning 


250 


Purgatdnj,  Pardons^  Image-worship,  etc. 


but  mistaken  teachers"  might  save  themselves,  as  those  who 
escape  through  fire,  yet  it  would  be  mortifying  to  them  to  see 
their  work  destroyed.  Good  Christians  compared  to  incombus- 
tible materials,  as  gold,  silver,  solid  stones,  would  stand  the  fire; 
others,  compared  to  wood,  hay,  stubble,  would  not.  The  meta- 
phor is  popular,  and  not  to  be  pressed. 

1  Pet.  iii.  18-20:  "  For  Christ  also  hath  once  suffered  for  sins, 
the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God,  being  put 
to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit;  by  which  also 
he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in  prison;  which  sometime 
were  disobedient,  when  once  the  long-suffering  of  God  waited  in 
the  days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  a  preparing,  wherein  few, 
that  is,  eight  souls  were  saved  by  water."  This  text  has  been 
pressed  into  the  service  of  the  Universalists — the  prison  being 
hell.  It  certainly  cannot  mean  purgatory;  because  those  ante- 
diluvian sinners  died  in  mortal  sin,  and  such  go  to  hell,  not  to 
purgatory,  according  to  Rome.  But  the  right  meaning  of  the 
text  is  that  given  to  it  by  Bede : 

He  who,  in  our  times,  coming  in  the  flesh,  preached  the  way  of  life  to  the  world, 
even  he  himself  came  before  the  flood  and  preached  to  them  who  were  then  unbe- 
lievers and  lived  carnally.  For  even  he,  by  his  Holy  Spirit,  was  in  Noah,  and 
in  the  rest  of  the  holy  men  which  were  at  that  time,  and  by  their  good  conversa- 
tion preached  to  the  wicked  men  of  that  age,  that  they  might  be  converted  to  bet- 
ter manners. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  remark  (though  the  mistake  of  some 
might  make  it  expedient  to  note)  that  "he  went  and  preached," 
or  "having  gone  he  preached,"  is  simply  a  pleonasm  for  "he 
preached."  So  the  Syriac.  (C/*.  Eph.  ii.  17.)  He  preached  by 
the  Spirit  in  Noah.  (Gen.  vi.  3;  2  Pet.  ii.  5. )  Those  to  whom  he 
preached  by  Noah  were  those  in  the  flesh,  though  they  were 
disembodied  spirits  in  prison — in  hell — when  Peter  wi'ote,  where 
they  are  still.  The  Fathers  had  a  conceit  that  Christ  went  after 
death  and  delivered  the  souls  of  the  pious  ancients  from  the 
limhiis  imtnim,  but  this  wild  notion  has  no  affinity  to  purgatory. 

§  3.  Patristic  Proofs. 

As  the  Scriptures  give  the  Piomanists  no  support  for  purga- 
tory, they  fall  back  upon  the  Fathers.  But  what  if  the  Fathers  did 
believe  it?  All  the  worse  for  the  Fathers.  However,  though 
they  had  errors  enough,  this  does  not  appear  to  be  one  of  them. 

Burnet  says: 


The  Romish  Doctrine  cf  Purgatory. 


251 


It  were  easy  to  sliow  that  tlie  doctrine  of  purgatory,  as  it  is  now  in  the  Roman 
Church,  was  not  known  in  tlie  Church  of  God  for  the  first  six  hundred  years;  that 
then  it  began  to  be  doubtfully  received.  But  in  an  ignorant  age,  visions,  legends, 
and  bold  stories  prevailed  much;  yet  the  Greek  Church  never  received  it.  Some 
of  the  Fathers  speak,  indeed,  of  the  last  probatory  fire;  but  though  they  did  not 
think  the  saints  were  in  a  state  of  consummate  blessedness,  enjoying  the  vision  of 
God,  yet  they  thought  they  were  in  a  state  of  ease  and  quiet,  and  that  in  heaven. 

Augustin  prayed  for  liis  mother  Monica,  though  he  .believed 
that  she  was  in  heaven.  The  Fathers  prayed  for  all  the  right- 
eous dead,  including  the  Virgin  Mary,  though  they  considered 
them  all  in  heaven.  Aerius  asked  what  was  the  use  of  praying 
for  them.  The  only  answer  they  gave  w^as  that  while  the  saints 
were  in  the  intermediate  state,  though  in  heaven,  they  might 
progress  in  holiness  and  happiness  and  have  an  early  resurrec- 
tion; and  so  they  would  help  them,  in  these  respects,  by  their 
prayers.  But  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  purgatory?  Nothing, 
except  to  show  that  the  Fathers  knew  nothing  of  that  terra  in- 
cognita, 

§4.  The  Action  of  Councils. 

The  Romanists  plead  the  authority  of  Councils  for  this 
dogma.  But  Avhat  Councils?  Not  a  single  ecumenical  Council 
received  it.  In  1439  Pope  Eugenius  contrived  to  get  together  a 
few  prelates  at  Florence,  who  prepared  decrees  affirming  that-the 
Pope  is  primate  and  head  of  the  Church;  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
proceedetli  from  the  Father  and  the  Son ;  and  that  there  is  a  pur- 
gatory! These  decrees  were  signed  by  sixty-two  Latin  and 
eighteen  Eastern  Bishops — hardly  a  General  Council.  When 
the  Greek  prelates  returned  to  Constantinople  they  were  re- 
ceived w ith  indignation,  and  the  decrees  utterly  repudiated.  The 
patriarchs  of  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Jerusalem  united  in  the 
protest  against  them.  Thus  it  remains  to  the  present  day.  The 
authority  of  the  Coancil  of  Trent  is  recognized  by  none  but  the 
adherents  of  Home. 

§5.  Miraculous  Proofs. 
Many  leading  Romanists  appeal  to  miracles  in  support  of  this 
dogma.  Ever  since  the  days  of  Pope  Gregory  the  Great,  mirac- 
ulous visions,  apparitions,  revelations,  etc.,  have  been  repeated, 
and  are  generally  believed,  by  the  faithful,  in  regard  to  purga- 
tory. iEtna  and  Vesuvius  have  been  had  in  requisition  for 
this  purpose.  Departed  spirits  were  seen  broiling  on  gridirons, 
roasting  on  spits,  burning  in  the  fire,  smoking  in  chimneys. 


252  Purgatory,  Pardons^  Image-worship,  etc. 


Eoads  to  purgatory  were  discovered  in  Sicily,  Pozzuoli,  and 
Ireland;  pointed  out  by  an  angel  or— devil.  Gregory  affected 
to  believe  these  lies.  In  the  tenth  century  Mosheim  says  the 
clergy,  finding  this  superstition  profitable,  by  pathetic  discourses, 
monstrous  fables,  and  fictitious  miracles,  labored  to  establish 
the  doctrine  of  purgatory.  Even  St.  Bernard  speaks  of  a  vision, 
in  which  a  woman  was  gradually  cleansed  in  purgatory.  Bellar- 
min  alludes  to  many  other  visions.  A  certain  monk  saw  souls 
roasted  on  spits  like  pigs,  devils  drenching  them  with  boiling 
lard.  Bishop  Theobald  heard  a  miserable  spirit  under  the  ice, 
telling  how  he  was  tormented,  and  how  he  might  be  delivered,  if 
for  thirty  continued  days  the  Bishop  Tvould  say  for  him  thirty 
masses.  Eomish  waitings  are  full  of  such  wretched  stuff.  To 
this  day  it  has  a  powerful  effect  upon  the  superstitious  devotees 
of  Rome.  Millions  of  money  have  been  given  to  priests  to  say 
masses  for  souls  in  purgatory.  It  would  be  vain  to  attempt  any 
serious  refutation  of  these  pious  frauds,  of  which  the  better  class 
of  E/omanists  are  ashamed. 

§G.  Rational  Proofs. 

The  most  plausible  method  of  defending  this  doctrine,  is  that 
now  adopted  especially  in  Protestant  countries.  Romish  polemics 
say,  None  but  the  perfectly  pure  can  enter  heaven;  but  few  are 
thus  perfectly  pure  at  death;  therefore  they  must  be  purged  in 
the  intermediate  state,  and  that  is  purgatory.  The  Scrij^ture 
assures  us  that  God  will  render  to  every  one  according  to  his 
works.  Now^  this  would  not  be  true  if  there  Avere  no  such  place 
as  purgatory;  for  how  would  God  render  to  everyone  according 
to  his  works,  if  such  as  die  in  the  guilt  of  any,  even  the  least  sin, 
which  they  have  not  taken  care  to  blot  out  by  repentance,  would 
nevertheless  go  straight  to  heaven?  To  this  some  add  that  the 
souls  in  purgatory  see  the  happiness  of  the  saints  in  heaven,  and 
are  consumed,  as  it  were,  with  longing  desires  to  be  with  them, 
and  that  is  the  fire  of  purgatory. 

It  is  impossible  for  any  who  have  correct  ideas  of  justification 
by  faith  and  of  the  glorious  doctrine  that  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ  cleanseth  from  all  sin,  to  be  embarrassed  by  any  such  di- 
lemmas as  these.  Nothing  that  we  can  do  can  atone  for  a 
single  sin;  the  blood  of  Christ  alone  can  do  that,  as  the  Script- 
ures assure  us.  "The  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him, 
and  with  his  stripes  w^e  are  healed."    The  reward,  as  well  as 


The  Romish  Doctrine  of  Piwgatorij.  253 


the  punishment  of  the  other  world,  will  be  dealt  out  according 
to  every  man's  character;  but  that  does  not  affect  the  doctrine 
that  we  are  saved  alone  by  the  merits  of  Christ,  appropriated 
by  a  living  faith.  There  will  be  progression  in  holiness  and 
happiness  in  the  other  world;  but  that  is  not  restricted  to  the 
intermediate  state:  it  is  quite  possible  that  our  progress  will  be 
more  rapid  when  we  shall  "have  our  perfect  consummation 
and  bliss,  both  in  body  and  soul  in  God's  eternal  and  everlast- 
ing glory." 

§  7.  Conclusion. 

As  the  onus  of  proof  is  on  the  assertors  of  the  dogma  of 
purgatory,  and  they  have  utterly  failed  to  prove  it,  we  do  not 
feel  called  on  to  prove  the  negative.  It  is  enough  to  say  that 
the  Scriptures  divide  the  human  family  into  two  classes — the 
good  and  the  bad— with  almost  infinite  varieties  in  each  division, 
and  that  they  assign  them,  at  death,  to  two  places  respectively — 
heaven  and  hell — the  incorrigibly  wicked  going  at  once  to  the 
latter,  and  the  good  to  the  former — where  each  shall  receive  the 
things  done  in  the  body,  according  to  that  they  have  done, 
whether  they  be  good  or  bad,  the  retribution  beginning  at  death, 
and  being  consummated  after  the  day  of  judgment.  (Eccl.  xii. 
7,  13,  14;  Luke  xvi.  19-31;  xxiii.  42  43;  John  v.  28,  29;  Acts  i. 
25;  2  Cor.  v.  1-10;  Phil.  i.  21-24;  Eev.  xiv.  13.) 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PARDONS  OR  INDULGENCES. 

The  next  thing  noticed  in  the  Article  is  the  Komish  doctrine 
of  "  pardons,"  which,  like  that  of  purgatory,  is  pronounced  "  a 
fond,"  that  is,  a  foolish  "thing,  vainly  invented  and  grounded 
upon  no  warrant  of  Scripture,  but  repugnant  to  the  word  of 
God."  The  Latin  recension  has  ''de  indulgentiis.''  The  Romish 
doctrine  of  indulgences  grew  out  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory, 
and  falls  with  it. 

§1.  Definition  and  History. 

In  the  Nicene  Church  Bishops  were  allowed  to  mitigate  the 
penance  of  offenders  and  restore  them  to  the  communion  of  the 
faithful,  upon  their  repentance  and  good  conduct.  Subsequently 
alms-giving  was  substituted  for  penance.  This  custom  is  said 
to  have  originated  in  the  seventh  century  with  Theodore,  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury;  but  this  is  not  stated  in  Godwin's  life 
of  that  prelate.  But  those  patristic  pardons  were  different  from 
Romish  indulgences,  which  are  exemptions  from  the  temporal 
punishment  of  sin,  in  which  they  comprehend  Church  censures 
and  the  pains  of  purgatory.  An  indulgence  is  thus  defined  by 
Peter  Dens: 

It  is  the  remission  of  the  temporal  punishment  clue  to  sins,  remitted  as  to  their 
guilt,  by  the  power  of  the  keys,  without  the  sacrament,  by  the  application  of  the 
satisfactions  which  are  contained  in  the  treasury  of  the  Church.  This  is  the  col- 
lecti(m  of  tlie  spiritual  goods  remaining:  in  the  divine  possession,  the  distribution 
of  wliich  is  intrusted  to  the  Clmrch.  In  the  lirst  place  it  is  collected  from  the 
superabundant  satisfactions  of  Christ,  next  from  the  superfluous  satisfactions  of  the 
blessed  Virgin  Mary  and  of  the  other  saints.  This  treasury  is  the  foundation  or 
matter  of  indulgences,  and  is  that  infinite  treasury  made  up  in  part  from  the  satis- 
factions of  Christ,  so  as  never  to  be  exhausted;  and  it  daily  receives  the  supera- 
bundant satisfactions  of  pious  men. 

Dens  says  that  indulgences  are  divided  into  local,  real,  and  per- 
sonal; into  plenary,  non-plenary,  more  plenary,  and  most  ple- 
nary; and  into  perpetual  and  temporal.  The  Pope  has  the 
power  of  granting  plenary  indulgences  to  all  Christians;  but  a 
Bishop  only  in  his  own  diocese — the  Pope  by  divine  right,  the 
(2.54) 


The  Bodrine  of  Pardons  or  Indulgences. 


255 


bishop  by  ecclesiastical  right.  Aquinas  says  the  power  is  one 
of  jurisdiction,  not  oi:  order.  Dens  says  the  receiver  must  have 
been  baptized,  must  have  the  use  of  reason,  be  in  a  state  of 
grace,  say  certain  prayers,  visit  churches,  receive  the  eucharist, 
fast,  give  alms,  confess,  etc.  He  continues:  "According  to  the 
same  common  and  true  opinion,  it  is  sufficient  that  the  last  act 
of  what  is  required  be  done  in  a  state  of  grace,  unless  it  is  other- 
wise expressed  in  the  diploma."    Pope  Leo  X.  says: 

The  Roman  Pontiff  may,  for  reasonable  causes,  by  his  apostolical  authority, 
grant  indulgences  out  of  the  superabundant  merits  of  Christ  and  the  saints,  to  the 
faithful  who  are  united  to  Christ  by  charity,  as  well  for  the  living  as  for  the  dead, 
and  that  in  thus  dispensing  the  treasure  of  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
saints,  lie  either  confers  the  indulgence  by  the  method  of  absolution,  or  transfers 
it  by  the  method  of  suffrage.  Wherefore  all  persons,  wliether  living  or  dead,  who 
really  obtain  any  indulgences  of  this  kind,  are  delivered  from  so  much  temporal 
punishment,  due  according  to  divine  justice  for  their  actual  sins,  as  is  equivalent 
to  the  value  of  the  indulgence  bestowed  and  received. 

The  Council  of  Trent  teaches: 

Since  the  power  of  conferring  indulgences  has  been  bestowed  by  Christ  upon 
his  Church,  and  this  power  divinely  given  has  been  used  from  the  earliest  antiq- 
uity, the  holy  council  teaches  and  enjoins  that  the  use  of  indulgences,  so  salutary 
to  Christian  people,  and  approved  by  the  authority  of  venerable  councils,  shall  be 
retained  in  the  Church;  and  it  anathematizes  those  who  assert  that  they  are  use- 
less, or  deny  that  the  Church  has  the  power  of  granting  tliem. 

Pope  Pius  IV.  has  embodied  it  in  his  Creed,  which  contains 
the  faith  of  Eomanists:  "I  also  affiinn  that  the  power  of  indul- 
gences w^as  left  by  Christ  to  the  Church,  and  that  the  use  of 
them  is  most  wholesome  to  Christian  people."  How  "  whole- 
some" they  have  been  history  informs  as.  To  excite  the  zeal  of 
Europe  at  the  time  of  the  Crusades,  to  induce  the  superstitious 
fanatics  to  go  forth  against  the  infidels  who  had  possession  of 
Palestine,  indulgences  were  proclaimed;  and  these  were  eagerly 
bought,  because  they  wiped  out  the  record  of  all  past  transgres- 
sions. It  was  under  Pope  Leo  X.  that  this  system  attained  its 
highest  influence.  The  habits  of  that  Pope  were  voluptuous  and 
expensive;  his  treasury  was  exhausted,  and  he  sought  to  replen- 
ish it,  to  enable  him  to  build  the  church  of  St.  Peter,  at  Kome. 
The  signing  by  him  of  the  bull  which  authorized  the  sale  of  in- 
dulgences may  be  regarded  as  the  great  crisis  of  the  Eeforma- 
tion  in  Europe.  The  tax  to  be  collected  was  farmed  out  by  the 
prelates  in  their  several  districts.  They  employed  eloquent 
preachers  to  magnify  the  value  of  the  indulgences,  and,  accord- 


256 


Pnygaiori/,  Pardons^  linage-worships  etc. 


ing  to  the  Pope's  bull,  all,  "whether  living  or  dead,  were  freed 
from  so  much  temporal  punishment,  due  according  to  divine 
justice  for  their  actual  sins,  as  is  equivalent  to  the  value  of  the 
indulgence  bestowed  and  received." 
D'Aubigne  says: 

A  great  agitation  prevailed  at  tliis  time  among  the  German  people.  The  Church 
had  opened  a  vast  market  on  earth.  From  the  crowds  of  purchasers,  and  the 
shouts  and  jokes  of  the  sellers,  it  might  have  been  called  a  fair,  conducted  by 
monks.  The  merchandise  which  they  were  extolling,  and  which  they  offered  at 
a  reduced  price,  was,  said  they,  the  salvation  of  souls.  These  dealers  traversed  the 
country  in  a  handsome  carriage,  accompanied  by  three  horsemen,  living  in  great 
state,  and  spending  freely.  When  the  procession  approached  a  town,  a  deputy 
waited  on  the  magistrate,  and  said,  "  The  grace  of  God  and  of  the  Holy  Father  is 
at  your  gates!"  Instantly  every  thing  was  in  motion  in  the  place.  The  clergy, 
the  priests  and  nuns,  the  councils,  the  school-masters  and  their  pupils,  the 
trades  with  their  banners,  men  and  women,  went  out  to  meet  those  merchants, 
bearing  lighted  tapers  in  their  hands,  and  advancing  to  the  sound  of  music  and  all 
the  bells:  so  that,  says  our  historian,  they  could  not  have  received  God  himself  with 
greater  honor!  Salutations  being  exchanged,  the  procession  moved  toward  tlie 
church.  The  pontiff's  bull  of  grace  was  carried  in  front  on  a  velvet  cusliion  or 
on  cloth  of  gold.  The  chief  of  the  indulgence  merchants  came  next,  holding  a 
large  red  wooden  cross  in  his  hand.  As  the  procession  thus  moved  along,  amidst 
ringing,  prayers,  and  the  smoke  of  incense,  the  sound  of  the  organ  and  loud  music 
welcomed  the  merchant  monk  and  his  attendants  into  the  temple.  The  cross 
which  he  carried  was  placed  in  front  of  the  altar:  on  it  were  suspended  the  arms 
of  the  Pope;  and,  so  long  as  it  remained  there,  tlie  clergy  of  the  place  and  others 
came  daily  after  vespers  and,  before  tlie  salutation,  to  render  it  homage.  One  per- 
son in  particular  attracted  public  attention  on  these  occasions:  it  was  he  who 
carried  the  red  cross  and  played  the  chief  part.  He  was  robed  in  the  Dominican 
dress  and  moved  with  an  air  of  arrogance.  His  voice  was  sonorous  and  seemed 
in  its  full  strength,  though  he  had  already  attained  his  sixty-third  year.  This 
was  the  celebrated,  or  rather  the  infamous,  Tetzel.  When  the  cross  had  been 
erected,  he  went  into  the  pulpit,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  crowd  began  to  extol 
the  value  of  indulgences:  * 

"Indulgences  are  the  most  precious  and  most  noble  of  God's  gifts.  This  cross 
(pointing  to  the  red  cross)  lias  as  much  efficacy  as  the  very  cross  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Come,  and  I  will  give  you  letters,  all  properly  sealed,  by  which  even  the  sins 
which  you  intend  to  commit  may  be  pardoned.  I  would  not  change  my  privi- 
leges with  those  of  St.  Peter  in  heaven,  for  I  have  saved  more  souls  by  my  indul- 
gences than  the  apostle  by  his  sermons.  There  is  no  sin  so  great  that  an  indul- 
gence cannot  remit.  Reflect,  then,  that  for  every  mortal  sin  you  must,  after 
confession  and  contrition,  do  penance  for  seven  years,  either  in  this  life  or  in  pur- 
gatory. Now,  how  many  mortal  sins  are  there  not  committed  in  a  day?  How 
many  in  a  month,  week,  year,  and  whole  life?  Alas!  these  sins  are  almost  in- 
finite, and  they  entail  an  infinite  penalty  in  the  fires  of  purgatory;  and  now,  by 


History  of  the  Reformation,"  Book  III.,  chap.  1. 


The  Doctrine  of  Pardons  or  Indulgences. 


257 


means  of  these  letters  of  indulgences,  3'ou  can  once  in  your  life,  in  every  case  ex- 
cept four,  which  are  reserved  for  the  apostolic  see,  and  afterward  in  the  article  of 
death,  obtain  a  plenary  remission  of  all  your  penalties  and  all  your  sins;  but  more 
than  this,  indulgences  avail  not  only  for  the  living,  but  for  the  dead;  for  that  re- 
pentance is  not  even  necessary.  Priest,  noble,  merchant,  wife,  youth,  maiden,  do 
you  not  hear  your  parents  and  other  friends,  who  are  dead,  and  who  cry  from  the 
bottom  of  the  abyss,  'We  are  suffering  horrible  torments;  a  trifling  alms  would 
deliver  usl  you  can  give  it,  and  will  not.'  At  the  very  instant  that  the  money 
rattles  at  the  bottom  of  the  chest,  the  soul  escapes  from  purgatory,  and  it  flies  lib- 
erated to  heaven.  O  stupid  and  brutish  people!  who  do  not  understand  the  grace 
so  richly  offered.  Now  heaven  is  everywhere  opened,  do  you  refuse  to  enter  in? 
When,  then,  will  you  enter?  Now  you  can  ransom  many  souls.  Stiff-necked  and 
thoughtless  man!  with  twelve  groats  you  can  deliver  your  father  from  purgatory, 
and  you  are  ungrateful  enough  not  to  save  him.  I  shall  be  justified  in  the  day  of 
judgment;  but  you — you  will  be  punished  so  much  the  more  severely  for  having 
neglected  so  great  salvation.  Do  you  know  why  our  most  holy  Lord  distributes 
so  rich  a  grace?  It  is  to  restore  the  ruined  Church  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  so 
that  it  may  not  have  its  equal  in  the  world.  Blessed  are  your  eyes,  for  they  see; 
and  blessed  are  your  ears,  for  they  hear,"  etc. 

Tetzel's  absolution  ran  as  follows: 

^lay  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  have  pity  on  thee,  and  absolve  thee  by  the  merits 
of  his  most  holy  passion;  and  I,  by  virtue  of  the  apostolic  power  wliich  has  been 
confided  to  me,  absolve  thee  from  all  ecclesiastical  censures,  judgments,  and  pen- 
alties which  thou  mayest  have  incurred;  moreover,  from  all  excesses,  sins,  and 
crimes  that  thou  mayest  have  committed,  however  great  and  enormous  they  may 
be,  and  from  whatever  cause,  were  they  even  reserved  for  our  most  Holy  Father, 
tiie  pope,  and  for  the  apostolic  see.  I  blot  out  all  the  stains  of  inability  and  all 
marks  of  infamy  that  thou  mayest  have  drawn  on  thyself  on  this  occasion.  I  re- 
mit the  penalties  thou  shouldst  have  endured  in  purgatory.  I  restore  thee  anew 
to  the  jiarticipation  of  the  sacraments  of  the  Church.  I  incorporate  thee  afresh 
in  the  communion  of  saints,  and  re-establish  thee  in  the  purity  and  innocence  thou 
hadst  at  thy  baptism,  so  that,  in  the  hour  of  death,  the  gate  by  which  sinners  en- 
ter the  place  of  torment  shall  be  closed  against  thee,  and  the  gate  leading  to  the 
paradise  of  joy  shall  be  open;  and  if  thou  shouldst  not  die  for  long  years,  this 
peace  will  remain  unalterable  till  the  last  hour  shall  arrive.  In  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  Amen. 

We  know  it  is  said  that  Tetzel  abused  the  power  which  Leo 
had  given  him;  but  the  great  question  is  this:  Has  Rome  repent- 
ed of  her  wickedness  by  giving  up  the  system  of  indidgences?  No. 
The  Council  of  Trent  sanctioned  them,  even  after  the  time  that 
Luther  had  exposed  them  to  all  Europe,  and  they  are  continued 
to  this  day.  We  find  (according  to  the  system  of  jubilees  es- 
tablished in  the  year  1300,  under  the  pontificate  of  Boniface 
VIIL)  that  a  bull  was  issued  in  1825,  offering  to  the  faithful  a 
liberal  grant  of  indulgences.  The  vicar  apostolic  of  the  London 
17  Vol.  IL 


258  Purfjatory^  Pardons,  Iniage-icorsJiij),  etc. 


district  issued,  in  the  same  year,  "  instructions  and  directions  " 
for  gaining  this  great  boon.  "Embrace,  dearly  beloved,"  he 
said,  the  benefit  that  is  offered  you  by  the  indulgences  of  the 
present  jubilee.  Avail  yourselves  of  every  means  of  discharging 
your  debt  to  the  divine  justice." 

On  the  1st  of  December,  1850,  a  document  was  issued  by 
"  Nicholas  by  the  divine  mercy  of  the  holy  Eoman  Church,  by 
the  title  of  St.  Pudentiana,  Cardinal  Priest,  Archbishop  of  AVest- 
minster,  and  administrator  apostolic  of  the  diocese  of  South- 
wark,"  proclaiming,  by  the  authority  olhis  "Holiness,"  "an  ex- 
traordinary jubilee."  "In  order  to  encourage  the  faithful  to 
partake  of  the  benefits  of  this  holy  time,  the  Church  liberally 
opens  her  precious  treasures  and  grants  to  all  a  plenary  indul- 
gence in  the  form  of  a  jubilee." 

A  modern  traveler  tells  us  that  in  the  city  of  Pome  "you  may 
buy  as  many  masses  as  will  free  your  soul  from  purgatory  for 
twenty-nine  thousand  years  at  the  Church  of  St.  John  Lateran 
on  the  festival  of  that  saint;  at  Santa  Bibiana,  on  All-souls- 
day,  for  seven  thousand  years."  ^ 

Every  year  a  lucrative  system  of  indulgences  is  carried  on  in 
Spain.  Four  bulls  are  sent  annually  from  Pome;  the  profits  are 
divided  between  the  monarch  and  the  Pope. 

Even  in  Protestant  countries  indulgences  are  granted,  though 
with  more  reserve  and  caution  than  in  Popish  countries.  Indul- 
gence tablets  are  frequently  displayed  in  Churches,  setting 
forth  the  conditions  on  which  indulgences  may  be  procured, 
and  the  term  of  their  extension.  We  must  refer  to  works  on  this 
subject  for  the  details,  which  are  too  revolting  to  be  here  cited. 
See  Elliott  on  Pomanism,  Book  II.,  chap,  xiii.;  McClintock 
and  Strong's  "  Cyclopedia,"  Art.  Indulgences. 

§  2.  Romish  Proofs  Considered. 

It  seems  useless  to  enter  upon  any  refutation  of  the  dogma  of 
indulgences;  to  state  it  is  to  refute  it. 

By  referring  to  Matt.  xvi.  19,  "  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  etc.;  John  xxi.  17,  "Feed  my  sheep," 
and  the  like  passages  of  Scripture  which  have  no  reference 
whatever  to  the  subject,  Ilomanists  acknowledge  that  the  Bible 
affords  no  support  to  this  detestable  dogma. 


*  "  Rome  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,"  Vol.  II.,  pp.  267-270. 


The  Doctrine  of  Pardons  or  Indulgences. 


259 


Thomas  Aquinas  refers  to  the  history  of  the  adulterous  woman 
(Johnviii.),  the  incestuous  Corinthians  (1  Cor.  v.;  2  Cor.  ii.) — 
sinners  who  were  pardoned  without  making  satisfaction.  But 
every  sinner  is  pardoned  without  making  satisfaction — the  only 
satisfaction  for  sins  has  been  made  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  is  ob- 
tained alone  by  repentance  and  faith.  But  the  richest  argument 
is  that  advanced  by  Aquinas:  "The  Church  general  is  infallible, 
and  as  it  sanctions  and  practices  indulgences,  indulgences  must 
be  valid."  How  can  any  one  answer  such  arguments?  The 
Catholic  Church  is  not  infallible;  it  has  greatly  erred,  and  we 
adduce  this  dogma  of  indulgences  as  a  proof  of  the  assertion. 

Indulgences  are  incompatible  with  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith,  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  a  life  of  penitence 
and  obedience,  the  promise  of  free  and  full  pardon  to  all  who 
truly  repent  and  unfeignedly  believe  the  gospel. 

They  impiously  exalt  the  hierarchy,  miserably  delude  the  be- 
sotted people,  encouraging  them  in  their  sins,  and  derogate  from 
the  merits  of  Christ  and  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  are 
"  a  fond  thing,  vainly  invented,  and  grounded  upon  no  warrant 
of  Scripture,  but  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God:"  like  the  works 
of  supererogation  noted  in  the  Eleventh  Article,  already  dis- 
cussed. 


CHAPTKR  III. 

IMAGE  AND  RELIC  WORSHIP. 
§1.  Introductory. 
The  next  thing  condemned  in  the  Article  is,  "worshiping  and 
adoration,  as  well  of  images,  as  of  relics."  In  the  Latin  recen- 
sion as  given  by  Bishop  Browne,  there  is  but  one  word,  veneratione; 
but  in  the  Latin  version  of  Jo.  Elis  we  find  de  cidtu  et  adora- 
tione.  Burnett  also  has  it  adoration.  Perhaps  the  word  adora- 
tion was  added  to  bring  out  more  fully  the  idea  that  religious 
worship  is  intended.  By  images  are  comprehended  all  visible 
representations  of  any  object,  divine,  angelic,  or  human;  rational, 
irrational,  or  inanimate.  By  relics  are  meant  any  things  sup- 
posed to  have  belonged  to  a  saint,  or  to  have  been  in  any  way 
connected  with  him — as  the  instrument  by  which  a  martyr  was 
put  to  death.  It  is  humiliating  that  there  should  be  any  ne- 
cessity for  a  protest  against  idolatry  and  fetichism  so  debas- 
ing. But  there  is  great  need  for  it,  as  it  is  a  marked  character- 
istic of  the  Romish  Church. 

§2.  Roinish  Statements. 

The  Council  of  Trent  says: 

Images  of  Christ,  tlie  Virgin  Mother  of  God,  and  the  saints,  shall  be  retained 
in  Churches  and  due  honor  and  veneration  given  to  them — not  because  any  divin- 
ity or  virtue  is  believed  to  be  in  them,  for  which  they  are  to  be  worshiped,  nor 
because  any  thing  is  to  be  sought  from  them,  or  faitli  reposed  in  them — as  by  the 
Gentiles,  Avho  jdaced  their  hope  in  images — but  because  the  honor  which  is  i)aid  to 
them  is  referred  to  their  prototypes,  so  that  hy  means  of  the  images,  which  we  kiss 
and  bow  down  before,  we  adore  Christ  and  reverence  the  saints,  whose  likeness 
they  bear. 

The  holy  bodies  of  the  martyrs  and  others  living  with  Christ,  whose  bodies  were 
living  members  of  Christ  and  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  will  by  him  be 
raised  to  eternal  life  and  glorified,  are  to  be  venerated  by  the  faithful,  since  God 
bestows  by  them  many  benefits  among  men. 

The  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  says: 

The  saints  reigning  together  with  Christ  are  to  be  honored  and  invocated  that 
they  offer  prayers  to  God  for  us,  and  that  their  relics  are  to  be  venerated.    I  most 
firmly  assert  that  the  images  of  Christ  and  of  the  mother  of  God,  ever  Virgin,  and 
(260) 


Image  and  Relic  Worship. 


261 


also  of  the  other  saints,  are  to  be  had  and  retained ;  and  that  due  honor  and  ven- 
eration are  to  be  given  to  them. 

§3.  Universality  of  the  Practice. 

The  worship  of  images  and  relics  is  universal  in  the  Church 
of  Eome.  Their  chapels  abound  with  these  objects  of  idolatry, 
and  they  are  adored  with  as  much  fervor  as  the  heathens  mani- 
fest in  their  idol-worship.    Mr.  Seymour  says  in  his  "  Lectures:  " 

In  the  church  of  the  Augustinians,  at  Rome,  there  is  an  image  of  the  Virgin 
Mary.  It  is  one  called  a  miraculous  image,  that  is,  it  works  miracles.  Our  Lord 
cleansed  the  leper,  healed  the  sick,  cured  the  blind,  and  raised  the  dead.  Lest 
this  should  steal  away  the  hearts  of  the  people  from  Mary  to  Christ,  they  have 
got  up  similar  miracles  as  wrouglit  by  Mary,  and,  accordingly,  every  year  this  im- 
age of  Mary  works  miracles  of  the  same  kind.  It  is  as  l-irge  as  life,  very  coarse, 
and  very  ugly.  It  is  dressed  in  silks  and  satins;  the  hands  are  co  /ered  with  rings, 
the  wrists  witii  bracelets,  the  arms  with  armlets,  the  neck  with  hali  a  dozen  of  neck- 
laces— all  being  topaz  and  amethyst  and  rubies  and  diamonds.  Her  stomacher 
is  black  velvet,  loaded  with  diamonds,  and  on  her  head  is  a  diadem  of  diamonds 
that  would  grace  an  empress.  All  these  were  the  ofTerings  of  lier  votaries.  I 
reckoned  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  sixty-seven  rings,  over  and  besides  those  on 
her  fingers,  arranged  for  display  on  her  siirine.  I  have  frequently  visited  this 
churcii ;  and  as  the  high  altar,  where  the  priest  says  mass  for  tlie  worship  of  Christ, 
is  at  one  end,  as  the  image  of  Mary  is  at  the  other,  so  have  I  witnessed,  at  the 
time  of  mass,  the  extraordinary  scene  of  hundreds  of  persons  turning  their  backs 
upon  Mary  to  worship  Christ  in  the  host,  and  at  the  same  moment  hundreds  of 
others  turning  their  backs  upon  Christ  in  the  host  to  worship  the  Virgin  in  the 
image.  I  have  seen  the  whole  congregation  divided  thus  between  Christ  and 
Mary  at  the  elevation  of  the  host,  which  is  the  most  solemn  moment  of  all  their 
worship,  when  they  suppose  that,  by  the  process  of  transubstantiation,  the  host 
has  become  the  visible  body  of  Christ  among  them.  I  have  seen  them,  I  say,  at 
that  moment  turn  their  backs  on  the  host,  and  prefer  bowing  to  the  image  of  the 
Virgin. 

The  same  writer,  in  describing  the  nature  of  Komanism  at 
Kome,  describes  the  adoration  paid  to  the  Bambino — that  is,  "the 
Child" — designed  as  the  image  of  the  child  Jesus: 

It  is  a  little  doll,  some  eighteen  inches  or  two  feet  long.  It  is  carried  about 
the  streets  by  the  priests  in  a  sort  of  state-coach,  and  is  taken  to  visit  ladies  in  the 
hour  of  nature's  sorrow,  on  the  festival  called  Blessing  the  Bambino,"  amidst  a 
band  of  nearly  ninety  priests  and  monks,  the  clash  of  military  music,  blazing 
torches,  and  clouds  of  incense.  When  the  chief  priest  raised  the  idol,  fire  thou.- 
sand  souls  prostrated  themselves  in  worship  before  it.  I  liad  never  beheld  such 
an  awful  spectacle;  and  I  feel  that  never,  in  tlie  darkest  days  of  the  idolatry  of 
heathen  Rome,  was  there  any  thing  comparable  to  the  grossness  of  this  modern 
idolatry  of  Christian  Rome. 

The  Church  of  Eome  pretends  that  she  has  among  her  sacred 


262  Piirgatonj,  Pardons,  Image-worsldp,  etc. 


treasures  the  wood  of  the  true  cross;  and  it  is  said  there  are 
more  pieces  of  the  true  cross  on  the  continent  than  would  load  a 
ship  of  war.  We  are  told  by  Thomas  Aquinas'^"  that  the  cross 
is  to  be  worshiped  with  /(/^r/a,  with  supreme  honor:  the  Missal 
authorized  by  Popes  Clement  and  Urban  orders  the  clergy  on 
bended  knees  to  icorship  the  cross:  the  Breviary  commands  that  the 
choir  shall  sing,  "Hail,  O  Cross!  our  only  hope!  increase  right- 
eousness to  the  pious:  hestoiv pardon  on  the  guilty!  " — and  surely 
in  all  this  there  is  the  recognition  and  the  practice  of  the  gross- 
est idolatry.    In  the  church  of  the  Lateran  you  will  find 

Tlie  ark  of  the  Lord  which  Moses  made,  and  the  identical  table  at  which  our  Lord 
ate  the  last  supper  with  his  disciples.  Upon  the  higli  altar  are  the  lieads  of  tlie 
apostles  Peter  and  Paul;  and  though  the  heads  be  in  Rome,  there  is  a  great  piece 
of  the  skull  of  St.  Peter  at  Bilboa,  and  that  of  Paul  is  in  the  possession  of  the 
Franciscans  in  the  same  city.  Hundreds  of  relics  are  found  among  other  church- 
es: among  which  are  pretended  to  be  shown  part  of  the  manna  in  the  wilderness, 
some  of  the  blossoms  of  Aaron's  rod,  a  finger  and  arm  of  St.  Anna,  a  piece  of  the 
Virgin's  veil,  the  head  of  St  Dennis,  which  he  carried  two  miles  under  his  arm 
after  it  was  cut  off,  the  rope  with  which  Judas  hanged  himself,  etcf 

The  following  "  relics  "  are  referred  to  in  the  Hon.  J.  W.  Per- 
cy's "  Eomanism  as  it  exists  at  Kome,"  published  in  1847.  They 
are  noticed  by  Mr.  Percy,  with  many  others,  on  the  authority  of 
lists  or  inscriptions  seen  in  different  churches,  which  he  men- 
tions: 

Some  of  the  manna  with  which  God  fed  the  Hebrew  people  in  the  desert. 
The  stone  where  the  Lord  wrote  the  law  given  to  Moses  on  Mount  Sinai. 
Part  of  the  chain  of  St.  John  Baptist,  forerunner  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
A  little  piece  of  the  stone  where  Christ  was  born. 

A  little  piece  of  the  stone  where  our  Lord  Jesus  sat  when  he  pardoned  the 
sins  of  the  Magdalen. 

The  great  toe  of  the  foot  of  St.  Mary  Magdalen. 

Part  of  the  napkin  with  which  our  Lord  wiped  the  feet  of  his  disciples. 
One  of  the  pieces  of  money  with  which  it  is  believed  the  Jews  paid  the  treach- 
ery of  Judas. 

One  bottle  of  the  most  precious  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  another 
full  of  the  milk  of  the  most  blessed  Virgin. 

The  finger  of  St.  Thomas  the  apostle,  with  which  he  touched  the  most  holy 
side  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  after  his  resurrection. 

Mr.*Seymour  says: 

I  have  handled  the  rod  of  Moses;  I  have  looked  on  Aaron's  rod  that  budded; 
I  have  seen  the  brazen  serpent  that  Moses  made;  I  have  held  in  my  hand  the 
stone  that  killed  Stephen;  I  have  seen  pieces  of  the  true  cross,  and  the  transverse 

*Bossuet  admits  that  St.  Thomas  thus  teaches.— CEuvres  i.  448. 
f  rhilosophic  Library  for  June,  1818,  and  Catalogue,  1753. 


Image  and  Relic  Worship. 


263 


heam  of  the  crots  of  the  repentant  thief.  I  have  seen  the  nails  that  pierced  the 
liands  and  the  spear  that  pierced  the  side  of  the  Redeemer.  I  have  seen  and 
handled  some  thousands  of  the  teeth,  and  pieces  of  the  teeth,  and  pieces  of  tlie 
bones,  and  parings  of  the  nails,  and  locks  of  the  hair  of  apostles,  martyrs,  and 
saints.  I  have  seen  the  people  bow  and  prostrate  themselves  before  them  witli 
every  outward  act  of  devotion  and  adoration,  though  I  believe  in  my  soul  they  are  the 
grossest  frauds  and  vilest  impostures  that  ever  disgraced  or  cursed  the  world. 

Several  times  in  every  year  the  pretended  blood  of  St.  Janua- 
rius  is  exhibited  at  Naples,  and  the  miracle  of  its  liquefaction 
is  performed  by  the  highest  ecclesiastic  before  thousands  of  be- 
sotted spectators.  But  time  would  fail  to  tell  about  blinking 
madonnas  and  the  many  charms  and  amulets  in  universal  use 
among  the  devotees  of  Eome.  ^ 

§  4.  Origin  and  Development  of  This  Practice, 
As  this  superstition  and  idolatry  is  so  palpably  opposed  to 
reason  and  revelation,  it  is  a  question  of  curious  interest  how  it 
was  ever  introduced  into  the  Church,  and  how  it  is  defended. 

The  worship  of  relics  seems  to  have  preceded  that  of  images. 
A  religious  veneration  for  the  relics  of  martyrs  obtained  in  very 
early  times.  It  was  customary  to  meet  at  the  tombs  of  the  mar- 
tyrs to  celebrate  the  days  of  their  martyrdom.  The  Church  at 
Smyrna  was  disappointed  in  not  being  permitted  to  take  away 
the  body  of  their  martyred  Bishop — Poly  carp — though  they  in- 
dignantly denied  that  they  would  worship  it.  Helena,  the  mother 
of  Constantine,  bestowed  great  veneration  on  the  true  cross  of 
Christ,  which  she  supposed  she  had  found,  and  to  which  miracles 
were  attributed.  Gregory  Nazianzen  extols  the  virtues  of  the 
remains  of  St.  Cyprian,  by  which  miracles  were  said  to  be 
wrought.  Vigilantius  denounced  the  veneration  which  the  su- 
perstitious of  his  day  paid  to  the  relics  of  martyrs.  Jerome  de- 
nied the  charge  with  great  vehemence : 

Not  only  do  we  not  worship  relics,  but  not  the  sun,  the  moon,  angels  nor  arch- 
angels, cherubim  nor  seraphim,  nor  any  name  that  is  named  in  this  world  or  in 
the  world  to  come;  lest  Ave  should  serve  the  creature  rather  than  tlie  Creator,  who 
is  blessed  forever.  We  honor  the  relics  of  the  martyrs,  that  we  may  worship  Him 
whose  martyrs  they  are.  We  honor  the  servants  that  their  honor  may  redound 
to  their  Lord's. 

St.  Augustin  uses  very  unguarded  language  respecting  the 
relics  of  saints  and  miracles  wrought  b}'  them;  yet  he  denounces 
the  growing  superstition  of  venerating  them,  carrying  them  about 
for  sale  and  the  like.    There  is  no  superstition  in^  preserving 


264 


Purgatonj,  Pardons^  Iinage-icorshii),  etc. 


souYenirs  of  those  whom  we  esteem.  Charles  Wesley,  allading 
to  Elijah's  mantle,  beautifully  says: 

"We  gather  up  -with  pious  care 

"What  happy  saints  have  left  behind. 
Their  writings  in  our  memory  bear, 

Tlieir  sayings  in  our  faithful  mind; 
Their  works,  which  traced  them  to  the  skies, 

For  patterns  to  ourselves  we  take. 
And  dearly  love,  and  highly  prize 

The  mantle  for  the  wearer's  sake. 

Yet  how  easily  may  this  sentiment  be  peiwerted.  It  is  not  un- 
reasonably thought  that  God  concealed  the  place  of  the  burial 
of  Moses  lest  the  Israelites  might  worship  his  remains.  No  one 
can  blame  them  for  preserving  the  brazen  serpent  which  Moses 
erected  on  the  pole,  as  it  was  a  remarkable  type  of  Christ;  yet 
we  read  in  2  Kings  xviii.  4,  that  "  Hezekiah  brake  in  pieces  the 
brazen  serpent  which  Moses  had  made;  for  unto  those  days  the 
children  of  Israel  did  burn  incense  to  it;  and  he  called  it  Ne- 
hushtan  " — that  is  a  piece  of  brass.  If  we  had  the  wood  of  the 
cross  on  which  Christ  died,  it  would  be  a  thousand  times  better 
to  burn  it  to  ashes  than  to  lift  it  up  for  public  veneration;  it 
would  be  sure  to  receive  the  worship  due  to  Him  who  hung  upon 
it.  As  might  be  expected,  image-worship  was  not  so  early  and 
so  easily  introduced  into  the  Church.  The  primitive  Christians 
were  incessantly  contending  against  the  heathen  for  their  idola- 
try, and  so  would  not  be  likely  to  go  into  it  themselves.  They 
had  an  utter  repugnance  to  the  use  of  images  to  excite  devotion. 
As  this  is  stoutly  denied  by  Eomanists,  Bingham  has  collected 
overwhelming  testimonies  from  the  Fathers  that  for  nearly  four 
hundred  years  images  were  forbidden  to  be  used  in  churches, 
and  that  their  worship  was  not  tolerated  till  A.D.  692.  In  the 
eighth  chapter  of  the  Eighth  Book  of  his  "  Christian  Antiquities  " 
he  discusses  this  question  in  the  most  admirable  and  conclusive 
manner. 

§5.  Arguments  for  the  Practice  Refuted. 

As  the  objections  to  the  worship  of  images  and  relics  are  so 
potent,  so  numerous,  so  powerful,  one  may  be  at  a  loss  to  in- 
quire how  these  objections  are  met  by  Eomanists  and  by  what 
counter  arguments  they  defend  their  idolatry.  Dr.  Wiseman 
seems  hoiTified  at  Eomanists'  being  called  idolaters.  He  ex- 
claims: "Idolaters!  know  ye,  my  brethren,  the  import  of  this 


Image  and  Belie  Worship. 


265 


name?  that  it  is  the  most  frightful  charge  that  can  be 'laid  to 
the  score  of  any  Christian?  "  Truly  it  is,  and  it  is  all  the 
worse  for  those  in  this  condemnation. 

That  there  is  no  precept  requiring  image-worship,  and  no  prec- 
edent for  an  example,  in  the  Bible,  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  two 
false  renderings  of  the  Vulgate  are  adduced  in  the  premises.  The 
first  is  Ps.  xcix.  5:  Exaltate  Dominion  Dciim  nostrum,  et  adorate 
scabellum  pediun  ejus:  quoniam  sanctum  est.  But  the  reading  is: 
"Exalt  ye  Jehovah  our  God;  and  bow  down  at  the  stool  of  his 
feet;  holy  he  is."  Cf.  ver.  9:  "Exalt  ye  Jehovah  our  God;  and 
bow  down  at  the  mountain  of  his  holiness,  for  holy  is  Jehovah 
our  God."  The  Hebrew  means  "  at  the  stool,"  or,  as  in  the  litur- 
gical version,  "before  his  footstool."  The  other  passage  is  Heb. 
xi.  21:  Adoravit  fastigium  virgce  ejus:  Bheims,  "Adored  the  top 
of  his  rod."  This  ignores  the  l-i  of  the  original,  well  rendered 
in  our  version  "worshiped,  leaning  upon  the  top  of  his  staff:" 
the  natural  posture  of  a  sick  old  man.  It  is  a  poor  business  to 
represent  patriarchs  and  prophets  as  adoring  stools  and  staffs. 

Those  who  are  not  familiar  with  the  finesse  of  the  Roman  con- 
trovertists  will  wonder  what  they  can  do  with  the  Second  Com- 
mandment. The  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  thus  treats 
this  subject: 

"  Thou  shalt  not  make  to  thyself  a  graven  thing,  nor  the  likeness  of  any  thing 
that  is  in  heaven  above,  or  in  the  earth  beneath,  nor  of  those  things  that  are  in 
the  waters  under  the  earth:  thou  shalt  not  adore  them  nor  serve  them."  Some, 
supposing  these  words  to  constitute  a  distinct  precept,  reduce  the  ninth  and  tenth 
commandments  into  one.  St.  Augustin  holds  a  different  opinion;  considering  the 
two  last  to  be  distinct,  ho  refers  these  words  to  the  first  commandment;  and  this 
division,  because  well  known  and  most  approved  in  the  Catholic  Church,  we  will- 
ingly adopt.  As  a  very  strong  argument  in  its  favor,  we  may,  however,  add  the  « 
propriety  of  annexing  to  the  first  commandment  its  sanction,  the  rewards  or  pun- 
ishments attached  to  its  observance  or  violation — a  propriety  which  can  be  pre- 
served in  the  arrangement  alone  which  we  have  chosen.  This  commandment 
does  not  prohibit  the  arts  of  painting  or  sculpture;  the  Scriptures  inform  us 
that  God  himself  commanded  images  of  cherubim  and  also  the  brazen  serpent  to 
be  made;  and  the  conclusion,  therefore,  at  which  we  must  arrive  is  that  images 
are  prohibited  only  in  as  much  as  they  may  be  tlie  means  of  transferring  the  wor- 
ship of  God  to  inanimate  objects,  as  though  the  adoration  offered  them  were  giv- 
en to  so  many  gods.  To  represent  the  Persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity  by  certain 
forms  under  which,  as  we  read  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  they  deigned  to 
appear,  is  not  to  be  deemed  contrary  to  religion  or  the  law  of  God.  Who  so  ig- 
norant as  to  believe  such  forms  are  express  images  of  the  Deity?  forms,  as  the  pas- 
tor will  teach,  which  only  express  some  attribute  or  action  ascribed  to  God.  (Dan. 


266  Pur  gator  1/,  Pardons^  Lnage-icorshipy  etc. 


vii.  13;  Heb.  i.  14;  Matt.  iii.  16;  Actsii.  3.)  But  to  make  and  honor  the  images 
of  our  Lord,  of  his  holy  and  virginal  Mother,  and  of  the  saints,  all  of  whom  ap- 
peared in  human  form,  is  not  only  not  forbidden  by  this  commandment,  but  has 
always  been  deemed  a  lioly  practice,  and  the  surest  indication  of  a  mind  deeply 
impressed  with  gratitude  toward  them.  This  position  derives  confirmation  from 
the  monuments  of  the  apostolic  age,  the  general  councils  of  the  Church,  and  the 
'  writings  of  so  many  amongst  the  Fathers  eminent  alike  for  sanctity  and  learning, 

all  of  whom  are  of  one  accord  upon  the  subject.  But  tiie  pastor  will  not  content 
himself  with  showing  the  lawfulness  of  the  use  of  images  in  churches,  and  of  pay- 
ing them  religious  respect,  when  this  respect  is  referred  to  their  prototypes;  he 
will  do  more,  he  will  show  that  the  urtinterrupted  observance  of  this  practice  up 
to  the  present  time  has  been  attended  with  great  advantage  to  the  faithful ;  as  may 
be  seen  in  the  work  of  Damascene  on  images,  and  in  the  Seventh  General  Council, 
which  is  the  Second  of  Nice. 

Let  us  analyze  this  remarkable  passage.  The  reason  for 
blending  the  Second  Commandment  with  the  First  is  trivial. 
There  are  no  sanctions  to  any  of  the  Commandments  except  the 
Second,  Third,  and  Fifth:  so  no  argument  can  be  drawn  from 
the  sanctions  in  the  Second,  pro  or  C07i.  The  Tenth  Command- 
ment, according  to  our  notation,  is  manifestly  one  precept,  lev- 
eled against  covetousness,  and-  in  the  New  Testament  is  fre- 
quently cited  in  brief,  "Thou  shalt  not  covet."  But  we  should 
not  object  so  much  to  the  notation  of  the  commandments,  were  it 
not  turned  to  a  sinister  account.  There  is  a  Romish  catechism, 
called  "An  Abridgment  of  Christian  Doctrine,  recommended  by 
authority  for  the  use  of  the  Faithful  in  England:  published  by 
Burns  and  Lambert,  Portman  Street,  Portman  Square."  On  the 
front  of  it  is  a  picture  of  the  Virgin  and  Child,  with  an  imprima- 
tur by  Nicholas,  bishop  of  Melipotamus  (Cardinal  Wiseman), 
London,  Easter,  1850.  The  Second  Commandment  in  the  word 
of  God  is  as  follows:  "Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any 
graven  image,  or  likeness  of  any  thing  that  is  in  the  heaven 
above,  or  that  is  in  the  earth  beneath,  or  that  is  in  the  water 
under  the  earth:  thou  shalt  not  bow  down  thyself  to  them,  nor 
serve  them;  for  I  the  Lord  thy  God  am  a  jealous  God,  visiting 
the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and 
fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate  me,  and  showing  mercy 
r  unto  thousands  of  them  that  love  me,  and  keep  my  command- 

ments.'' (Exod.  XX.  4-6.)  But  instead  of  this  commandment 
Dr.  Wiseman  has  sanctioned  the  following  in  the  catechism  re- 
ferred to : 

**What  is  the  Second  Commandment? 


Imacfe  and  Relic  Worship. 


267 


"  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain." 

But  this  is  part  of  the  Third  Commandment:  so  that  they  have 
thus  actually  left  the  Second  Commandment  out  of  the  catechism 
altogether;  and  to  make  up  the  ten,  they  have  divided  the  tenth 
into  two.  Is  not  this  done  because  Rome  knows  that  she  is 
guilty  of  idolatry,  and  therefore  tries  to  strangle  the  wdtness 
that  would  bear  testimony  against  her?  The  Rev.  Dr.  McCaul, 
in  his  tract,  "  Why  does  the  Church  of  Rome  hide  the  Second 
Commandment  from  the  People?"  (printed  in  London,  in  1850), 
has  shown  that  of  twenty-nine  catechisms  in  use  in  Italy,  France, 
Belgium,  Austria,  Bavaria,  Silesia,  Poland,  Ireland,  England, 
'  Spain,  and  Portugal  (all  published  under  lawful  authority), 
there  are  twenty-seven  in  which  the  Second  Commandment  is 
totally  omitted,  and  two  in  which  it  is  mutilated  and  only  a  por- 
tion expressed. 

Few  persons  are  so  simple  (though  we  have  found  some)  as  to 
suppose  that  the  commandment  interdicts  the  making  of  images 
and  pictures.  It  is  lawful  to  make  representations  of  any  thing 
except  the  Godhead;  that  is  absolutely  forbidden  in  Deut.  iv.  14- 
24,  where,  by  the  way,  the  same  sanction  is  appended  to  the  inter- 
dict of  image-worship.  It  is  not  the  making  of  representations 
of  things  in  heaven,  earth,  or  under  the  earth;  it  is  the  making 
of  them  to  worship.    ( Cf.  Isa.  xi. ) 

It  is  useless  to  say  the  w^orship  does  not  terminate  in  the  im- 
age, but  in  that  which  it  represents.  The  less  besotted  of  heathen 
idolaters  say  the  same  thing.  But  what  do  the  images  represent? 
God?  Then  that  is  the  foulest  idolatry;  for  he  has  positively 
forbidden  any  representation  to  be  made  of  himself:  "God  is  a 
Spirit:  and  they  that  worship  him  must  worship  him  in  spirit 
and  in  truth. "  ( John  iv,  24.)  There  can  be  no  representation  of 
God;  so  that  if  an  image,  purporting  to  represent  him,  is  wor- 
shiped the  worship  terminates  in  the  image.  Eminent  divines 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  teach  that  latria,  the  highest  worship, 
due  to  God  alone,  is  to  be  paid  to  the  images  of  the  Trinity  and 
of  Christ.  Bellarmin  states  this  as  one  of  the  opinions  in  the 
Church,  and  as  held  by  Aquinas,  ,Capitan,  Bonaventura,  and 
others  of  high  authority.  He  himself  says  the  worship  of  Latria 
is  only  improperly  and  per  accidens  due  to  an  image;  yet  he  in- 
consistently maintains  that  "the  images  of  Christ  and  the  saints 
are  to  be  venerated,  not  only  by  accident  or  improperly,  but  also 


268 


Purgatory,  Pardons,  Image-icorslnp,  etc. 


by  themselves  properly,  so  that  themselves  terminate  the  venera- 
tion, as  in  themselves  considered,  and  not  only  as  they  take  the 
place  of  their  Exemplar."  This  is  grosser  idolatry  than  that  of 
the  Israelites,  who,  in  worshiping  t^ie  calves  which  Aaron  and 
Jeroboam  made,  terminated  their  worship  in  Jehovah,  who 
brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  not  in  the  calves  by 
which  he  was  represented.  For  this  they  are  censured.  ( Ps.  cvi. 
19,  20.  ) 

The  reference  to  the  cherubim  and  the  brazen  serpent  is  ut- 
terly impertinent.  The  cherubim  were  not  idols;  they  were 
symbols,  probably  of  angelic  power,  and  belonged  to  a  typical 
economy.  They  were  not  made  to  be  worshiped,  or  even  looked 
upon  by  the  peox)le.  They  were  put  over  the  ark  in  the  Most 
Holy  Place;  no  one  ever  saw  them  save  the  high-priest,  and 
he  but  obscurely  once  a  year.  Is  that  the  case  with  the  pictures 
and  statues  of  the  Church  of  Rome?  Are  they  not  exposed 
everywhere?  and  are  they  not  worshiped  with  the  most  debasing 
forms  of  idolatry  ?  So  of  the  brazen  serpent.  It  was  a  symbol 
constructed  by  God's  command  to  answer  a  specified  end  and  to 
serve  as  a  type  of  Christ — not  to  be  worshiped.  AVhen  in  proc- 
ess of  time  the  children  of  Israel  burned  incense  to  it,  as  Eo- 
manists  incense  their  idols,  the  pious  king  Hezekiah  destroyed  it. 

When  it  is  urged  that  the  Scriptures  inculcate  image-wor- 
ship we  roundly  deny  the  assertion,  and  confront  it  by  numer- 
ous passages  of  holy  writ  by  which  it  is  interdicted — e.  g.,  Exod. 
XX.  1-6;  xxxii.;  Lev.  xix.  4;  xxvi.  1;  Deut.  iv.  12-26;  xvi.  21,22; 
xxvii.  15;  xxix.  17;  2  Kings  xviii.  4;  Ps.  xcvii.  7;  cxv.  4;  Isaiah 
passim — so  other  prophets;  Acts  xvii.  22-31;  Piom.  i.  23-25;  1 
Cor.  viii.  4;  x.  7;  1  John  v.  21;  Rev.  ix.  20. 

When  the  catechism  says  the  Fathers  were  all  of  one  accord 
in  favor  of  image-worship,  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that,  as  we 
have  shown,  they  were  all  of  one  accord  opposed  to  it.  AVhat 
"monuments  of  the  apostolic  age"  are  there  of  image-worship? 
None  whatever.  No,  nor  of  the  age  succeeding  th  e  apostoli  c.  Not 
a  vestige  of  it  has  been  found  in  the  Catacombs.  The  Ante-Ni- 
cene  Fathers  all  denounced  it  as  idolatry.  Irenseus  censures  the 
Gnostics  for  having  images  and  pictures  which  they  crowned  and 
honored,  like  the  Gentiles.  Origen  quotes  Celsus  as  saying  that 
Christians  could  not  bear  temples,  altars,  and  images;  and  Origen 
justifies  the  rejection  of  them.    Athanasius  condemns  the  adora- 


Image  and  Belie  Worship. 


269 


tion  of  images  of  the  Supreme  Being  and  of  angels  and  inferior 
intelligences.  They  used  the  symbol  of  the  cross,  but,  says  Mi- 
nutius  Felix,  "  we  neither  worship  crosses  nor  wish  for  them." 
Helena  thought  she  had  found  the  wood  of  the  cross  on  which 
Christ  was  crucified;  but,  says  Ambrose,  she  worshiped  that 
great  King  who  was  crucified,  not  the  wood  on  which  he  was  cru- 
cified: that,  says  he,  would  be  a  heathenish  error,  a  vanity  of 
impious  men.  When  by  degrees  pictures  and  images  were  in- 
troduced into  churches,  a  council  was  summoned  at  Constanti- 
nople, A.D.  754,  called  by  the  Greeks  the  Seventh  General  Coun- 
cil, which  is  rejected  by  the  Latins,  which  condemned  the  worship 
and  all  use  of  images.  But  in  the  reign  of  Ii^ene,  A.D.  784,  the 
Second  Council  of  Nice  was  summoned  by  that  Empress,  which 
reversed  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  and  or- 
dered that  images  should  be  set  up  and  worshiped,  though  not 
with  latria^  which  is  due  to  God  alone.  The  Galilean  Bishops 
repudiated  its  decrees,  and  so  did  the  British.  Charlemagne 
convened  a  Council  at  Frankfort,  composed  of  three  hundred 
bishops,  for  France,  Germany,  and  Italy,  who  formally  rejected 
the  Second  Council  of  Nice,  and  declared  that  it  was  not  to  be 
received  as  the  Seventh  General  Council.  It  was  not  received 
everywhere  in  the  Western  Church  for  five  centuries  and  a  half. 
But  in  869  the  Emperor  Basil  convened  another  Council  at  Con- 
stantinople, attended  by  about  one  hundred  Eastern  Bishops  and 
the  Legates  of  Pope  Adrian.  This  confirmed  the  worship  of  im- 
ages, and  is  reckoned  by  Komanists  as  the  Eighth  General  Coun- 
cil. But  it  was  repudiated  by  the  Eastern  Church  and  for  a  long 
time  was  not  acknowledged  in  the  West.  The  next  Council  of 
Constantinople,  A.D.  879,  repudiated  it,  and  this  Council  has 
been  in  turn  rejected  by  the  Western  Church.  So  much  for  the 
confirmation  of  image- worship  by  "the  General  Councils  of  the 
Church."  The  Iconoclastic  controversy  constitutes  one  of  the 
most  revolting  portions  of  Church  history. 

If  any  thing  can  exceed  the  weakness  of  the  defense  of  image- 
worship,  it  is  that  of  the  veneration  of  relics.  The  papists  claim 
that  miracles  are  wrought  by  these  relics,  and  that  therefore  they 
ought  to  be  worshiped.  We  deny  both  the  assertion  and  the  in- 
ference. As  to  the  assumed  miracles  we  have  discussed  them 
elsewhere.  Certain  diseases  may  have  been  removed  by  the 
power  of  imagination  at  the  touch  of  the  Abbe  Paris  and  under 


270 


Purcjatorij,  Pardons,  Image-worship,  etc. 


other  circumstances.  But  this  is, in  accordance  with  a  well- 
known  law  of  physiology  and  psychology.  But  suppose  the 
"holy  coat  of  Treves"  did  really  raise  a  dead  man  to  life.  Is 
that  any  reason  that  it  should  be  worshiped?  It  never  did  the 
like;  but  Peter  did.    Was  Peter  therefore  worshiped? 

We  are  referred  to  2  Kings  xiii.  21,  where  a  dead  man  is  said 
to  have  been  restored  to  life  when  his  corpse  touched  the  bones  of 
the  Prophet  Elisha.  But  what  has  that  to  do  with  the  question? 
Jehovah  by  this  miracle  attested  the  ministry  of  the  prophet, 
that  being  dead  he  might  yet  speak  to  a  people  that  needed  his 
warnings  and  instructions.  But  were  his  bones  ordered  to  be 
taken  up,  enshrined,  and  worshiped?  Take  the  bones  of  any 
saint  in  the  calendar;  put  a  corpse  upon  them;  and  if  it  is  re- 
stored to  life,  we  will  believe  that  there  is  virtue  communicated  by 
God  through  the  relics;  but  even  then  we  may  not  worship  them. 

2  Kings  xxiii.  18  is  adduced.  There  it  is  stated  that  Josiah 
honored  the  bones  of  a  man  of  God  who  was  buried  at  Bethel, 
and  said,  "Let  them  alone;  let  no  man  move  his  bones,"  while 
he  burned  the  bones  of  the  idolatrous  priests.  AVhy  did  not  the 
pious  monarch  encase  the  bones  of  the  saint  in  a  silver  shrine, 
set  them  up  in  the  temple,  and  order  them  to  be  worshiped? 

Then  we  are  referred  to  Acts  xix.  11,  12:  "And  God  wrought 
special  miracles  by  the  hand  of  Paul,  so  that  from  his.  body  were 
brought  unto  the  sick  handkerchiefs  or  aprons,  and  the  dis- 
eases departed  from  them,  and  the  evil  spirit  went  out  of  them." 
There  was  usually  some  outward  act  connecting  the  worker  of 
miracles  with  those  on  whom  the  miracles  were  wrought.  But 
we  must  be  demented,  indeed,  to  think  that  there  was  any  virtue 
in  clay  or  spittle  or  handkerchiefs  or  aprons.  By  the  mira- 
cles thus  wrought  God  established  the  divine  legation  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles.  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  the  matter? 
Miracles  are  not  now  needed,  and  they  are  not  now  wrought: 
not  by  the  head  of  John  the  Baptist  (who,  by  the  way,  never 
wrought  any  miracles  when  his  head  was  on  his  body);  nor  by 
the  handkerchief  of  St.  Veronica,  which,  according  to  fame,  bears 
the  true  likeness  of  the  face  of  Jesus,  as  he  is  said  to  have  wiped 
his  face  with  it  while  on  the  way  to  Calvary;  nor  by  his  sacred 
coat,  which  Komanists  pretend  to  have  at  Treves,  and  we  know 
not  where  else,  and  which  they  say  performs  many  and  astound- 
ing miracles;  nor — but  there  is  no  end  to  the  miracles  which 


Image  and  Belie  Worship,  271 

Romanists  say  are  wrought  by  all  kinds  of  relics— old  clothes, 
bones,  hair,  nails,  and  other  trumpery,  exhibited  to  gull  the  be- 
sotted people  and  to  aggrandize  and  enrich  the  priests. 

We  repeat,  if  the  greatest  miracles  were  wrought  by  these  relics 
— and  that  in  our  sight,  so  that  there  could  be  no  doubt  concern- 
ing their  reality — which  has  never  taken  place,  and  never  will 
take  place,  still  it  would  be  idolatry  in  us  to  worship  those  relics. 
We  might  indeed  view  them  as  objects  of  no  ordinary  interest 
and  preserve  them  with  special  care;  but  we  must  be  deranged 
in  mind  to  pay  them  the  veneration  due  to  God  alone.  Yet  Rom- 
ish authors  say  the  relics  of  the  cross,  which  they  pretend  to  have 
in  possession,  the  nails,  the  lance,  and  the  garments  of  Christ, 
together  with  the  crucifix,  are  to  be  worshiped  with  Jafria:  that 
is,  the  worship  due  alone  to  God  is  to  be  paid  to  t\ve  crucifix 
and  to  pretended  relics  of  the  cross;  and  this  in  the  face  of  the 
solemn  precept,  "Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and 
him  only  shalt  thou  serve." 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  INVOCATION  OF  SAINTS. 
§1.  Introductory. 

The  last  thing  condemned  in  this  article  is  tJie  invocation  of 
saints.  Under  the  term  "saints"  are  comprehended  angels  as 
well  as  the  disembodied  spirits  of  holy  men  and  women.  Angels 
are  sometimes  called  "  saints."  (Deut.  xxxiii.  2,  3.)  So  the  Church 
speaks  of  "Saint  Michael  and  all  angels."  Invocation  is  a 
general  term  comprehending  every  kind  of  religious  worship, 
as  prayer  and  praise — rhetorical  apostrophes,  of  course,  not  be- 
ing included.  One  not  familiar  with  the  history  of  the  Church, 
and  deriving  his  information  solely  from  the  Scriptures,  would 
be  surprised  and  shocked  to  be  told  that  a  large  and  influential 
part  of  the  Christian  Church  actually  w^orships  saints  and  angels. 
Yet  such  is  the  case.  Hagiolatry,  Mariolatry,  Angelolatry — the 
worship  of  the  saints,  the  Virgin  Mary  in  particular,  and  of 
angels — is  absolutely  commanded  and  universally  practiced  in 
the  Church  of  Eome. 

§2.  The  Roman  Position. 

The  Council  of  Trent  has  this  decree: 

Tlie  holy  synod  commands  all  bishops,  and  others  whose  office  and  business  it  is 
to  teach,  that  they  diligently  instruct  the  faithful,  concerning  the  intercession  and 
invocation  of  saints;  teaching  them  that  the  saints  reigning  with  Christ  do  offer 
up  their  prayers  to  God  for  men :  that  it  is  good  and  profitable  humbly  to  invocate  the 
minis,  and  to  fly  to  their  prayers,  help,  and  assistance,  for  the  obtaining  of  blessinc/s  from 
God  through  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ. 

It  is  afterward  declared  that  "  if  any  one  shall  teach  or  think 
contrary  to  these  decrees,  let  him  be  accursed."  ^ 

In  the  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  to  which  every  Roman  Catho- 
lic priest  subscribes  and  swears  his  solemn  adherence,  is  the  fol- 
lowing: "I  do  constantly  hold  that  the  saints  reigning  together 
with  Christ  are  to  he  invocafed.'^ 

The  Church  of  Rome  has  adopted  and  made  her  own,  in  this 


(272) 


*  Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  25. 


The  Invocation  of  Saints. 


27B 


matter,  one  of  ^iie  leading  characteristics  of  ancient  pagan  idola- 
try. It  was  the  creed  of  the  ancient  heathen  philosophers  that 
demons  {da i i nones }y  by  which  they  understood  inferior  deities — 
the  spirits  of  departed  heroes  and  eminent  men — were  mediators 
with  the  great  gods,  and  with  the  supreme  Deity,  the  father 
of  gods  and  men. 

"  The  demons,"  says  Plato,  "  are  between  God  and  man,  inter- 
preting and  carrying  things  betAveen  God  and  man;  bringing  be- 
fore the  gods  the  prayers  and  sacrifices  of  men,  bringing  to  men 
the  orders  of  the  gods,  and  their  rewards  for  their  sacrifices. 
God  is  not  mixed  with  them,  but  through  them  is  all  converse 
and  intercourse  between  the  gods  and  men  maintained,  whether 
the  latter  are  asleep  or  awake." 

To  the  same  purpose  are  the  words  of  Apuleius:  "All  things 
are  thought  to  be  done  by  the  power  and  authority  of  the  celes- 
tial gods,  but  by  the  means,  despatch,  and  administration  of  the 
demons." 

In  that  remarkable  work,  "Middleton's  Letters  from  Kome," 
the  entire  conformity  in  this  respect  between  the  idolatry  of 
paganism  and  the  adoration  of  saints  is  presented  with  all  that 
force  which  the  facts  of  history  necessarily  bear  with  them. 
This  author  tells  us  that  the  noblest  heathen  temple  now  remain- 
ing in  the  world  is  the  Pantheon,  or  Potunda,  at  Rome,  which  was 
dedicated  by  Agrippa  "To  Jove  ^nd  all  the  gods,"  and  was  con- 
secrated by  Pope  Boniface  IV.  "To  the  Virgin  and  all  the 
Saints."  "  AVith  this  single  alteration,"  he  says,  "  it  serves  ex- 
actly for  the  Popish  as  it  did  for  the  pagan  worship.  For  as  in 
the  old  pagan  temple  every  one  might  find  the  god  of  his  coun- 
try, and  address  himself  to  that  deity  whose  religion  he  was  most 
devoted  to,  so  it  is  the  same  thing  now:  every  one  chooses  the 
patron  whom  he  likes  best.  And  one  may  see  here  difi'erent 
services  going  on  at  the  same  time  at  different  altars,  with  dis- 
tinct congregations  around  them,  just  as  the  inclinations  of  the 
people  lead  them  to  the  worship  of  this  or  that  particular  saint." 
And  as  it  is  in  the  Pantheon,  so  it  is  in  all  the  heathen  temples 
that  remain  at  Rome.  They  have  only  pulled  down  one  idol  to 
set  up  another,  changing  rather  the  name  than  the  object  of 
their  worship.  Thus,  the  little  temple  of  Vesta,  near  the  Tiber, 
is  now  possessed  by  the  Madonna  of  the  Sun;  that  of  Fortuna 
Virilis  by  Mary  the  Egyptian;  that  of  Saturn  by  St.  Adrian; 
18  Vol.  II. 


274 


Purgaforjf,  Pardom,  Image-woysJuj^,  etc. 


that  of  Eomulus  and  Eemus  by.  two  other  brothers,  Cosmus 
and  Damianus;  that  of  Antonius  the  godly  by  Laurence  the 
saint. 

There  is  another  melancholy  analogy  between  ancient  pagan- 
ism and  modern  Eomanism,  which  is  worthy  of  notice.  It  is 
this:  In  the  ancient  mythology,  as  every  classical  reader  knows, 
it  was  taught  that  there  were  gods  who  presided  over  particular 
countries  and  cities,  and  gods  who  were  the  ])atrons  of  particular 
trades  and  professions;  and  so  it  is  in  the  calendar  of  the  Popish 
saints.  We  are  all  familiar  with  the  names  of  St  George  of 
England,  St.  Andrew  of  Scotland,  and  St.  Patrick  of  Ireland. 
So  there  is  St.  Sebastian  of  Portugal,  St.  James  of  Spain,  St. 
Denis  of  France,  and  St.  Mark  of  Venice.  So  with  regard  to 
trades:  St.  Luke  is  the  patron  of  painters,  St.  Crispin  of  shoe- 
makers, St.  Catherine  of  scholars,  and  St.  John  of  lawyers.  St. 
Anthony  has  the  charge  of  swine,  and  St.  Gall  us  of  geese  and 
sheep. 

§3.  The  Romish  Distinction  of  Degrees  or  Kinds  of  Wor- 
ship. 

As  this  system  of  saint-worship  is  so  prominent  in  the  Church 
of  Rome,  and  is  so  vehemently  denounced  by  Protestants,  let  us 
see  by  Avhat  arguments  it  is  defended,  and  how  they  are  an- 
swered. Eomanists  draw  a  distinction  between  latrkiy  InjpeV' 
dulia,  and  dulia:  the  first  being  supreme  w^orship,  due  to  God 
alone;  the  second  an  intermediate  worship,  due  alone  to  the  Vir- 
gin Mary;  the  third  an  inferior  worship,  due  to  saints  and 
angels.  Now  the  Scripture  recognizes  no  such  distinctions.  It 
does  recognize  a  distinction  between  religious  Avorship  and  civil 
worship;  the  latter  being  simply  the  outward  respect  shown  by 
one  person  to  another,  especially  to  superiors — e.  7.,  Matt,  xviii. 
26;  Luke  xiv.  11.  So  in  the  old  marriage  service:  "AVith  my 
body  thee  I  worship."  No  idea  of  religious  worship  is  hero 
suggested.  The  barbarous  term  hijpe.rdulia  is  not  found  in  the 
Bible.  The  other  terms  are  used  promiscuously  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  are  applied  to  the  worship  of  God  /y.,  Deut.  xxviii. 
47, 48;  1  Sam.  vii.  3.,  where  Samuel  exhorts  Israel  to  serve  God 
only — dooXvjffazz^  in  the  LXX.  The  term  ooohooj  is  used  in  refer- 
ence to  the  worship  of  God  in  Matt.  vi.  24;  Luke  xvi.  19;  Acts  xx. 
19;  Eom.  vii.  6,25:  xii.ll;  xiv.  18;  xvi.  18;  Col.iii.24-  1  Thess.  i. 


The  Invocation  of  Saints. 


275 


9;  cf.  Eev.  xxii.  3;  "His  servants,  dovAw.,  shall  serve  liim, 
lazinbaoonv^  aurcD."  Even  Bellamiin  and  Velasquez  acknowledge 
that  the  distinction  is  unscriptural,  the  words  being  promiscuous- 
ly used.  Nicholas  Serrarius  says:  "  It  is  one  and  the  same  virtue 
of  religion  which  containeth  both  latria  and  duliar  So  it  is, 
and  Christ  says:  *'Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and 
him  only  shalt  thou  serve."    (Matt,  iv.) 

§4.  Mediation  of  Redemption  and  of  Intercession. 

Homanists  make  another  distinction,  namely,  between  Media- 
tion of  Redemption  and  Mediation  of  Intercession;  but  this  is 
utterly  unscriptural.  "  There  is  one  Mediator  between  God  and 
men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all." 
(1  Tim.  ii.  5,'  6.)  And  there  is  no  other  mediator  but  he.  He 
bases  his  intercession  on  his  sacrifice.  (Rom.  viii.  34;  Heb.  x. 
14.)  "  We  have  nn  Advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the 
righteous;  and  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins."  He  who 
atones  for  our  sins  intercedes  for  us  on  high.  No  saint  or  angel 
can  take  his  place  at  the  mercy-seat  any  more  than  on  the  cross. 

§5.  The  Saints  More  Compassionate  Than  Christ. 

Romanists  pretend  that  the  saints,  especially  Saints  Anna  and 
Mary,  are  more  compassionate  and  approachable  than  Christ. 
When  the  .poor  Romanist  is  taught,  "Christ  is  too  great,  too 
awful,  too  exalted,  too  stern  in  his  justice,  to  be  approached  by 
you,  a  guilty  sinner;"  when  Dr.  Wiseman  says,  "The  saints  look 
down  upon  you  with  sympathy;  you  may  turn  to  them  to  use  the 
influence  they  necessarily  possess  with  God  toward  assisting 
their  frail  and  tempted  brethren  on  earth:"  -'  what,  we  ask,  is 
the  inevitable  tendency  of  such  teaching,  but  that  men  will  be 
led  to  think  that  there  are  others  in  heaven  more  ready  to  sym- 
pathize wdth  their  necessities  than  "the  Good  Shex3herd,  w^ho 
gave  his  life  for  the  sheep?"  And  is  it  so  that  Jesus  is  not  a 
sufficient  and  ever-compassionate  Advocate?  Is  it  not  he  whom 
we  hear  saying,  "Behold,  I  stand  at  the  door  and  knock:  if  any 
man  hear  my  voice,  and  open  the  door,  I  will  come  in  to  him, 
and  wdll  sup  with  him,  and  he  with  me?  "  (Rey.  iii.  20.)  Is  not 
this  the  true  Daysman,  God  and  man,  possessed  of  the  nature  of 
him  who  has  been  offended  and  of  him  who  offends,  and  there- 


Thirteenth  Lecture,  p.  9S. 


276 


Purgatory,  Pardons,  Image-worship,  etc. 


fore  alone  qualified  to  plead?  Is  not  this  the  true  Kinsman  Ee- 
deemer,  bone  of  our  bone,  and  flesh  of  our  flesh?  And  are  we 
to  be  afraid  to  commit  our  cause  to  him  alone?  Must  we  go  to 
others,  that  they  may  plead  with  him  for  us?  Is  not  he  "the 
Mediator  of  the  New  Testament?  "  (Heb.  ix.  15. )  And  is  it  not 
written:  "If  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  Advocate  with  the  Fa- 
ther, Jesus  Christ  the  righteous?  "  (1  John  ii.  1.)  Does  he  not. 
declare:  "No  m&n  cometh  unto  the  Father,  but  by  me"  (John 
xiv.  6) ;  "  if  ye  shall  ask  any  thing  in  my  name,  I  will  do  it "  (John 
xiv.  14)?  And  if  there  be  a  "throne  of  grace  "  to  which  we  are 
invited,  why  are  we  to  "come  boldly?"  Is  it  because  Mary  or 
Peter  or  Paul  or  any  saint  or  angel  is  there  to  mediate  for  us? 
No:  it  is  because  "we  have  not  an  High-priest  which  cannot  be 
touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities,"  but  one  who  "was 
in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin."  "Let  us 
therefore,"  says  the  Apostle,  "come  boldly  unto  the  throne  of 
grace,  that  we  may  obtain  mercy,  and  find  grace  to  help  in  time 
of  need."    (Heb.  iv.  15,  16.) 

Surely  this  ought  to  settle  the  question.  Not  only  does  Script- 
ure testify  that  "there  is  none  other  name  under  heaven  where- 
by we  must  be  saved  "  but  that  of  Christ,  but  it  teaches  that  we 
need  no  other  Saviour  than  him.  No,  blessed  Jesus!  be  it  thine 
to  undertake  our  cause:  Thou  art  able  to  save  them  to  the  utter- 
most that  come  unto  God  by  thee:  Thou  art  the  Friend  that 
sticketh  closer  than  a  brother:  Thou  art  not  ashamed  to  call  us 
brethren: 

Friend  of  the  friendless  and  the  faint, 
Where  shall  I  lodge  my  deep  complaint? 
Where  but  with  thee,  whose  open  door 
Invites  the  helpless  and  the  poor? 

§6.  Prayers  of  Earthly  and  of  Heavenly  Saints. 

But  it  is  said  saints  pray  for  us  on  earth,  and  we  ask  an  inter- 
est in  their  prayers ;  and  why  may  we  not  ask  them  to  intercede 
for  us  in  heaven?  and  why  may  they  not  do  so?  Simply  because 
there  is  no  warrant  for  it  in  Scripture.  They  cannot  hear  our 
prayers  and  praise.  They  know  not  our  wants;  and  therefore 
it  is  as  absurd  as  it  is  impious  for  us  to  invest  them  with  the  at- 
tributes of  Deity  and  the  functions  of  the  Mediator.  A  loving 
bond  of  symjjathy  is  cemented  between  the  members  of  the  mys- 
tical body  of  Christ  on  earth,  by  their  mutual  prayers,  and  we 


The  Invocation  of  Sahits. 


277 


naturally  seek  to  assist  those  for  whom  we  pray:  this  is  reason 
enough  for  our  praying  for  one  another  while  we  are  in  the  flesh. 
But  how  does  this  apply  to  the  saints  in  glory?  If  it  were  law- 
ful for  them  to  pray  for  us,  and  for  us  to  pray  for  them — which 
would  not  be  idolatry,  though  we  consider  it  superstition — how- 
does  it  appear  that  it  is  lawful  for  us  to  pray  to  tliem,  or  to  ask 
them  to  pray  for  us? 

§7.  Saints  and  Angels  in  tne  Presence  of  God. 

It  is  replied  that  saints  and  angels  are  in  the  immediate  pres- 
ence of  God,  and  can  behold  in  him,  as  in  a  mirror,  all  our  wants, 
and  so  can  be  induced  to  seek  their  supply.  We  admit  that  the 
saints  as  well  as  the  angels  are  in  the  immediate  presence  of 
God  in  heaven;  and  we  regret  that  Bishop  Browne  indorses  the 
notion  of  some  of  the  Fathers  and  others,  that  they  are  in  an  in- 
termediate place,  as  well  as  an  intermediate  state,  between  death 
and  the  resurrection.  They  are  with  Christ,  in  Paradise,  in 
heaven,  in  the  presence  of  God  and  the  angels.  The  Church  to 
which  Bishop  Browne  belongs  says  in  the  burial  service:  "Al- 
mighty God,  with  whom  do  live  the  spirits  of  those  that  depart 
hence  in  the  Lord,  and  with  whom  the  souls  of  the  faithful, 
after  they  are  delivered  from  tlie  burden  of  the  flesh,  are  in  joy 
and  felicity,"  etc.  The  talk  about  Hades,  as  the  abode  of  disem- 
bodied spirits,  is  antiquated  nonsense.  Their  bodies  are  in 
Hades,  that  is^  the  grave,  and  their  spirits  are  in  heaven.  But 
does  that  make  them  omniscient?  The  notion  of  the  schoolmen 
that  they  see  in  the  face  of  God,  as  in  a  mirror,  all  things  which 
are  done  upon  the  earth,  is  too  subtle  and  too  absurd  to  require 
much  notice  Nobody  can  tell  what  it  means.  If  it  means  that 
God  tells  them  of  our  condition  and  wants,  to  excite  their  sym- 
pathy and  induce  them  to  pray  for  us,  that  seems  a  roundabout 
way  of  accomplishing  the  end — the  supply  of  our  wants.  The 
vain  circuit  has  not  the  slightest  countenance  in  the  Bible. 

§8.  Romish  Proofs  from  Scripture  Considered. 

But  they  tell  us  that  the  Scriptures  do  inculcate  the  mediation 
and  invocation  of  saints  and  angels.  That  is  a  startling  state- 
ment, seeing  that  the  Bible  is  so  full  of  denunciations  of  idola- 
try in  all  its  forms,  condemning  in  set  terms  the  "worshiping 
of  angels"  (Col.  ii.  18),  and  recording  the  fact  that  angels  declined 
the  worship  which  was  inconsiderately  about  to  be  made  to  them. 


278 


Purgatorif,  Pardons,  Tmage-irorship,  etc. 


The  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  says  of  the  angels: 

Their  intercession,  therefore,  we  invoke,  beeause  they  always  see  the  foce  of 
God,  and  are  constituted  by  him  the  willing  advocates  of  our  salvation.  To  tliis 
their  invocation  the  Scriptures  bear  testimony.  Jacob  wished,  nay  compelled,  the 
angel  with  whom  he  wrestled  to  bless  him,  declaring  that  he  would  not  let  him  go 
until  he  had  blessed  him;  and  not  only  did  he  invoke  the  blessing  of  the  angel 
whom  he  saw,  but  also  of  him  whom  he  saw  not:  "The  angel,"  says  he,  "who  de- 
livered me  out  of  all  evil,  bless  these  children."    (Gen.  xxxii.  26;  xlviii.  16.) 

The  case  of  the  angel  who  appeared  to  Joshua,  and  who  was 
worshiped  by  him,  is  also  adduced  by  Bomish  writers.  (Josh. 
V.  14,  15. )  Now  they  ought  to  know,  and  they  must  have  known, 
that  the  "  angel "  in  these  cases  was  none  other  than  the  great 
Angel  of  the  Covenant,  who  frequently  appeared  in  that  way  to 
the  ancients,  as  many  of  the  Fathers,  as  well  as  the  most 
learned  divines  of  all  communions  have  held,  and  still  hold,  as  in 
Charles  Wesley's  immortal  hymn: 

Come,  O  thou  Traveler  unknown. 

But  even  if  Jacob  had  considered  the  angel,  or  man,  who 
wrestled  with  him,  a  created  intelligence,  human  or  angelic, 
recognizing  him  as  a  messenger  from  God,  he  might  have  asked 
for  his  blessing  without  any  idea  of  worshiping  him;  and  after- 
ward might  have  expressed  a  wish  that  the  angel  might  bless 
his  grandchildren  too.  We  frequently  pray  God  to  send  his 
angels  to  guide  and  protect  us,  Avithout  dreaming  of  rendering 
them  any  worship,  or  of  invocating  them,  except  in  rhetorical 
apostrophes,  as  in  Ps.  ciii.  and  cxlviii.,  where  the  angels  and  all 
other  creatures,  animate  and  inanimate,  are  called  on  to  praise 
the  Lord.  The  numerous  cases  in  which  it  is  said  that  worship 
was  rendered  to  angels  and  men  are  only  instances  of  civil  re- 
spect common  to  this  day  in  the  East.  Abraham  and  Lot  did 
not  know  that  the  "  men  "  whom  they  thus  worshiped  were  of  a 
higher  order  of  beings:  they  "entertained  angels  unawares." 
(Gen.  xviii.  2;  xix.  1;  Heb.  xiii.  2.) 

Cardinal  Wiseman,  among  the  five  hundred  passages  in  which 
prayer  is  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  finds  but  four  in  the  Old  Tes-* 
tament  (exclusive  of  two  in  Maccabees  and  Tobit,  which  are 
Apocryphal  books  of  no  authority)  and  five  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, from  which  he  can  infer  that  angels  were  invoked  by 
ancient  saints.  The  first  four  passages  are  taken  from  the  Book 
of  Daniel,  and  are  as  follows: 


The  Invocation  of  Saints. 


279 


"And  I  heard  a  man's  voice  between  the  banks  of  Ulai,  which 
called,  and  said,  Gabriel,  make  this  man  to  understand  the 
vision."    (  Dan.  viii.  16.) 

"  Yea,  while  I  was  speaking  in  prayer,  even  the  man  Gabriel, 
wliom  I  had  seen  in  the  vision  at  the  beginning,  being  caused  to 
fly  swiftly,  touched  me  about  the  time  of  the  evening  oblation." 
(Dan,  ix.  21.) 

"Then  said  he  unto  me.  Fear  not,  Daniel:  for  from  the  first 
day  that  thou  didst  set  thine  heart  to  understand,  and  to  chasten 
thyself  before  thy  God,  thy  words  were  heard,  and  I  am  come 
for  thy  words."    (Dan.  x.  12.) 

"And  at  that  time  shall  Michael  stand  up,  the  great  prince 
which  standeth  for  the  children  of  thy  people."    (Dan.  xii.  1.) 

With  regard  to  the  first  passage,  where  one  man  is  said  to 
speak  to  another,  there  is  no  mention  of  prayer  being  addressed 
to  either.  In  reference  to  the  other  passages,  there  is  not  the 
least  intimation  that  prayer  had  been  addressed  to  any  other 
than  to  God  himself.  Accordingly,  we  find  in  the  sacred  record 
that  the  angel  Gabriel  was  caused  to  fly  swiftly,  and  touched 
Daniel  at  the  time  of  the  evening  oblation;  and  he  said,  "O 
Daniel!  I  am  now  come  forth  to  give  thee  skill  and  understand- 
ing." But  to  whom  had  that  prayer  been  addressed?  "Why,  to 
God  himself —that  sublime  and  beautiful  prayer  containing  the 
words:  "O  Lord,  hear;  O  Lord,  forgive ;  O  Lord,  hearken  and  do; 
defer  not,  fbr  thine  own  sake,  O  my  God:  for  thy  city  and  thy 
people  are  called  by  thy  name."    (Dan.  ix.  19.) 

In  these  passages,  then,  all  that  is  taught  about  angels  is  just 
the  doctrine  that  is  more  fully  developed  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  which  is  stated  in  the  words  of  the  Apostle  Paul  to  the  He- 
brews: "Are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits,  sent  forth  to  minis- 
ter for  them  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation?  "    (Heb.  i.  ?4.) 

But  let  us  see  what  are  the  five  texts  which  Dr.  Wiseman,  in 
his  lectures,  adduces  from  the  New  Testament.  The  first  is 
Luke  XV.  7,  10,  "Likewise  I  say  unto  you,  there  is  joy  in  the 
presence  of  the  angels  of  God  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth." 

Angels,  it  is  argued,  know  what  is  done  on  earth,  and  there- 
fore prayers  may  be  addressed  to  angels.  But  what  is  the  sub- 
stance of  the  passage?  There  are  three  beautiful  parables,  two 
besides  that  of  the  prodigal  son.  The  first  is  that  of  the  lost 
sheep.    When  the  shepherd  has  brought  it  back  on  his  shoulders 


280 


Pitrgatonj,  Pardons^  Image-worship^  etc. 


rejoicing,  lie  calls  liis  friends  and  neighbors,  and  says:  "  Kejoice 
with  me;  for  I  have  found  my  sheep  which  was  lost."  The  sec- 
ond is  that  of  the  lost  piece  of  money;  and  when  the  woman 
has  swept  the  house  diligently  until  she  has  found  it,  she  calls 
her  friends  and  neighbors  together,  and  says:  "Bejoice  with  me; 
for  I  have  found  the  piece  which  I  had  lost."  Thus,  so  far  as 
the  parable  teaches,  as  the  shepherd  tells  his  neighbors  of  the 
finding  of  the  wandering  sheep,  and  as  the  woman  tells  her 
neighbors  of  the  lost  piece  of  money  restored  and  found,  so 
God  reveals  to  his  angels  that  another  sinner  has  repented,  and 
this  causes  their  joy.  It  amounts  to  the  same  thing  if  the 
angels,  as  ministering  spirits,  bear  the  news  to  heaven. 

Dr.  Wiseman  founds  an  argument  on  Matt.  xxii.  30:  "For  in 
the  resurrection  they  neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage, 
but  are  as  the  angels  of  God  in  heaven."  Invocation  is  ad- 
dressed by  Romanists  to  disembodied  spirits;  but  this  passage 
refers  only  to  saints  when  they  shall  receive  their  glorified  bodies^ 
and  therefore  does  not  bear  on  the  subject  before  us.  But  even 
if  we  did  admit  that  the  spirits  of  the  just  made  perfect  are  7iow 
equal  to  angels,  we  ask.  What  has  that  to  do  with  the  assertion 
that  our  prayers  are  to  be  addressed  to  them  ? 

A  third  text  is  adduced  by  Wiseman,  Matt,  xviii.  10:  "Take 
heed  that  ye  despise  not  one  of  these  little  ones;  for  I  say  unto 
you.  That  in  heaven  their  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  Still  it  will  be  observed  that 
there  is  not  one  word  authorizing  prayers  to  angels.  Allusion 
is  made  to  Rev.  v.  8,  "  golden  vials  full  of  odors,  which  are  the 
prayers  of  saints."  But  the  reference  of  the  whole  verse  is 
to  the  mode  of  worship  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation, 
(Neh.  xii.  27;  Ps.  cxli.  2),  and  the  "vials"  evidently  allude  to 
the  prayers  offered  up  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  through 
"  the  Lamb  in  the  midst  of  the  throne,"  by  the  ministers  and 
members  of  the  Church. 

Last  of  all  we  are  referred  to 'Rev.  viii.  3,  4:  "And  another 
angel  came  and  stood  at  the  altar,  having  a  golden  censer;  and 
there  was  given  unto  him  much  incense,  that  he  should  offer  it 
with  the  prayers  of  all  the  saints  upon  the  golden  altar  which 
was  before  the  throne.  And  the  smoke  of  the  incense,  which 
came  with  the  prayers  of  the  saints,  ascended  up  before  God  out 
of  the  angel's  hand." 


The  Invocation  of  Saints. 


281 


In  the  Old  Testament,  as  already  noted,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
receives  the  name  of  the  Angel — the  Angel  of  God's  presence— 
the  Angel  that  spoke  to  Moses  as  God  from  the  burning  bush — 
the  Angel  that  appeared  to  Joshua  as  the  captain  of  the  Lord's 
host — the  Angel  that  wrestled  with  Jacob  unto  the  breaking  of 
day,  who  was  recognized  to  be  God,  and  to  whom  Jacob  prayed 
when  he  was  dying,  as  the  God  before  whom  his  fathers  had 
walked,  as  the  Angel  which  redeemed  him  from  all  evil,  and 
whom  he  asked  to  "  bless  the  lads."  *  It  is  Christ,  therefore,  who 
comes  and  stands  at  the  altar.  There  is  "  given  unto  him  much 
incense; "  as  the  great  High-priest  he  has  gone  as  our  Interces- 
sor within  the  veil,  that  he  should  "offer  it  with  the  prayers" 
(or  add  it  to  the  prayers)  "  of  all  the  saints"  when  they  ascend 
up  to  heaven,  for  they  otherwise  would  be  rejected  of  the  Father. 
Thomas  Aquinas  expressly  declares  that  Christ  is  spoken  of  in 
this  passage  as  "the  Angel  of  God's  presence;"  and  the  Jesuit 
Yiegas  says:  "All  interpreters  do  confess  that  by  the  Angel  is 
meant  our  Lord  Christ."  f  And  of  the  accuracy  of  this  inter- 
pretation there  can  be  no  doubt,  v>hen  we  remember  that  the 
imagery  is  here  drawn  from  the  ancient  temple:  that  the  fjolden 
censer  pertained  to  the  high-priest  alone — nay,  that  at  the  golden 
altar  in  the  holiest  of  ally  the  high-priest  officiated  alone,  while 
the  people  prayed  without.  ( Heb.  ix.  3,  4,  7.)  AndJ  therefore, 
this  passage  proves  the  very  opposite  of  what  it  is  adduced  by 
Dr.  AYiseman  to  establish,  even  the  blessed  truth  that  there  is  no 
advocate  and  mediator  in  heaven  but  one — the  High-priest  of 
our  profession,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Here,  then,  are  all  the  passages  which  this  eminent  controver- 
sialist quotes  from  Scripture  in  order  to  prove  the  propriety  of 
addressing  invocations  and  prayers  to  saints  and  angels  in  heav- 
en; and  not  one  of  them,  as  we  have  seen,  supports  the  doctrine. 

There  is,  indeed,  one  example  of  prayer  offered  to  a  dis- 
embodied spirit.  But  who  offered  the  prayer?  where  was 
it  offered?  and  with  what  success?  It  was  offered  by  the 
rich  man  in  hell,  and  Abraham  granted  him  not  his  request: 
small  encouragement  for  the  invocation  of  saints.    So  there  is  an 

*  Compare  Gen.  xlviii.  16-20  with  Hosea  xii.  3-5,  and  both  with  Mai.  iii.  1  ; 
and  it  will  clearly  appear  that  "The  Angel"  or  "Messenger'*  was  not  a  created 
being,  but  that  he  was  Christ. 

t  Apoc.  cviii.  Sect.  2. 


282 


Purgatory,  Pardons,  Image-worship,  etc. 


example  of  worship  about  to  be  offered  to  an  angel;  but  lie  ab- 
ruptly and  vehemently  declined  the  honor.  John  says:  "And 
Avhen  I  had  heard  and  seen,  I  fell  down  to  worship  before  the 
feet  of  the  angel  which  showed  me  these  things.  Then  saith  he 
unto  me,  See  thou  do  it  not;  for  I  am  thy  fellow-servant,  and 
of  thy  brethren  tbe  prophets,  and  of  them  which  keep  the  say- 
ings of  this  book:  worship  God."  (Eev.  xxii.  8,  9;  cf.  xix.  10.) 
J ohn  evidently  intended  to  make  such  an  expression  of  reverence 
as  w\is  common  in  regard  to  superiors;  but  the  angel  sternly  re- 
buked him,  lest  it  might  be  pleaded  as  a  precedent  for  that  idol- 
atry against  which  our  article  protests.  "Worship  God,"  said 
the  angel.  So  Peti3r  declined  that  outward  reverence  from  Cor- 
nelius, because  there  was  danger  of  the  same  mistake,  Cornelius 
being  a  heathen.  And  though  it  is  not  recorded,  yet  we  may  be 
sure  that  Daniel  would  not  allow  Nebuchadnezzar  and  his  court- 
iers to  entertain  any  religious  sentiment  in  the  "  worship " 
which  in  Oriental  style  they  paid  him.  (Dan.  ii.  46. )  Indeed, 
the  firm  protest  of  Daniel  and  his  three  friends  against  idolatry 
seems  to  have  wrought  its  designed  effect  upon  Nebuchadnezzar, 
who  became  a  devout  worshiper  of  the  one  living  and  true  God. 
The  attempts  of  Romish  polemics  to  establish  the  worship  of 
saints  and  angels  by  Scripture  testimony  only  show  the  hope- 
lessness of  all  such  efforts. 

§  9.  Patristic  Authorities. 

As  might  be  expected,  they  fall  back  on  the  authority  of' the 
Fathers.  Now  if  they  could  in  truth  plead  such  authority  it 
would  be  nothing  worth,  as  the  Fathers  erred  most  grievously  in 
many  things.  But  it  betrays  unusual  hardihood  to  cite  the 
Fathers  in  favor  of  hagiolatry,  when  it  is  well  known  that  they 
were  earnest  and  uniform  in  their  opposition  to  it.  Even  Cardi- 
nals Perron  and  Eichelieu,  and  other  learned  Eomanists,  admit 
that  the  invocation  of  saints  was  not  practiced  for  the  first  three 
centuries;  and  for  the  reason,  they  say,  that  praying  to  saints 
would  have  been  too  much  like  pagan  idolatry.  It  would  have 
hindered  the  spread  of  the  gospel,  and  the  heathens  would  have 
used  it  as  an  argiimentiim  ad  hominem!  Truly  they  would,  but 
they  never  did,  for  the  very  good  reason  that  the  primitive  • 
Christians  worshiped  none  but  God  alone.  Bingham,  in  his 
"Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church,"  Book  XIII.,  heads  his 


The  Invocation  of  Saints. 


283 


third  chapter:  "That  in  the  ancient  Church,  religious  worship 
was  given  to  no  creature,  saint  or  angel,  but  to  God  alone."  He 
fully  establishes:  1.  That  the  encients  declare  universally  against 
giving  religious  Avorship  or  adoration  to  any  creature  or  being 
which  by  nature  is  not  God.  2.  That  in  particular  they  re- 
ject the  worship  of  saints  and  angels  as  idolatrous  and  unlawful. 
3.  That  there  is  no  mention  of  it  but  in  the  practice  either  of 
heretics  or  heathens,  whose  idolatry  is  aggravated  upon  the  ac- 
count of  this  practice.  He  says:  "Justin  Martyr  often  tells  the 
Empress  in  his  'Apology,'  that  Christians  could  worship  none 
but  God  alone,"  etc.  So  Theophilus,  Bishop  of  Antioch:  "  God's 
laws  command  the  worship  of  the  true  God  alone."  So  Ter- 
tuUian:  ''They  asked  these  things  of  the  true  and  living  God, 
and  they  could  ask  them  of  no  other  but  him,  because  -he  alone 
was  able  to  give  them."  There  is  a  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Fathers  on  this  subject.  Athanasius  argues  from  1  Thess.  iii. 
11  that  Christ  must  be  God,  and  not  an  angel  or  any  other 
creature,  since  he  is  invoked  in  conjunction  with  his  Father. 
Origen  positively  denies  that  even  the  Jews  or  Christians  gave 
any  religious  worship  to  angels.  Athanasius  says  Peter  for- 
bade Cornelius  to  worship  him,  and  the  angel  forbade  St.  John 
when  he  would  have  worshiped  him:  ''wherefore  it  belongs  to 
God  only  to  be  worshiped;  and  of  this  the  angels  are  not  igno- 
rant, who  though  they  excel  in  glory  are  yet  all  of  them  creat- 
ure^ and  are  not  in  the  number  of  those  to  be  adored,  but  of 
those  who  adore  the  Lord."  The  following  is  the  language  of 
Epiphanius,  in  the  fourth  century,  in  reference  to  the  religious 
honor  which  had  begun  to  be  paid  to  the  Virgin;  and  which,  origi- 
nating with  some  Arabian  women,  was  called  the  "heresy  of  the 
women: " 

Who  of  tlie  prophets  ever  alloAved  that  a  man  should  be  worshiped,  much  less 
a' woman?  Though  tlie  Virgin  be  a  chosen  vessel,  she  is  but  a  woman.  The  old 
error  shall  not  reign  among  us  to  leave  the  living  God,  and  to  worship  things  that 
he  lias  made.  For  if  he  will  not  suffer  the  angels  to  be  adored,  how  much  less  the 
daughter  of  Joachim  and  Anna,  who  was  born  to  them  as  other  mortals  are  born, 
of  a  father  and  motiier. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  Gregory  Nazianzen,  who 
was  the  first  of  the  Fathers  in  wdiose  writings  is  found  any  ad- 
dress to  the  dead;  did  not  intend  any  infringement  of  catholic 
doctrine  or  usage  in  so  doing.  He  expressly  declares  that  all 
worship  of  a  creature  is  idolatry,  and  charges  it  upon  the  Arians 


284 


Purgatory,  Pardons,  Image -worship,  etc. 


who  worshiped  Christ  while  they  denied  that  he  was  of  one  sub- 
stance with  the  Father.  In  his  rhetorical  apostrophes  to  the 
souls  of  Constantius,  and  his  own  sister  Gorgania,  he  expresses 
a  doubt  whether  they  could  hear  him,  and  in  neither  case  did 
he  pray  to  them.  He  was  too  sensible  and  too  orthodox  to  do 
that. 

§  10.  The  Action  of  Councils. 

It  seems  superfluous  to  note  the  argument  of  the  Romanists 
that  hagiolatry  is  commended  by  the  Councils  of  the  Church. 
The  first  General  and  Provincial  Councils  were  composed  of  the 
Fathers,  who  denounced  it  as  idolatry.  The  Second  Council  of 
Nice  (A.D.  787)  had  sanctioned  the  worship  of  images  and 
saints,  but,  as  we  have  seen,  this  is  not  to  be  reckoned  among 
the  General  Councils  of  the  Church.  Seven  years  after  the  Council 
of  Frankfort  forbade  both  the  worship  of  images  and  of  saints. 
That  Romish  Councils  have  subsequently  inculcated  both  is  too 
true;  and  it  is  for  this,  as  much  as  for  any  other  departure  from  the 
truth,  that  all  the  Reformed  Churches  in  the  world  repudiate 
its  authority  and  stand  aloof  from  its  communion — denouncing 
the  worship  of  saints,  in  connection  with  purgatory,  indulgences, 
and  the  worship  of  images  and  relics,  as  a  fond  thing,  vainly  in- 
vented, and  grounded  upon  no  warrant  of  Scripture,  but  repug- 
nant to  the  word  of  God. 


PART  III. 

ARTICLE  XV. 

Of  Speaking  in  the  Congregation  in  such  a  Tongue  as  the 
People  Understand. 

It  is  a  thing  plainly  rejmgnant  to  the  ivovd  of  God,  and  the  cus- 
tom of  the  Primitive  Church,  to  have  public  prayer  in  the  church, 
or  to  minister  the  sacraments,  in  a  tongue  not  understood  by  the  people. 


Introduction. 

This  is  precisely  the  same  as  Article  XXIV.  of  the  Anglican 
Confession,  except  that  "understood  by"  is  substituted  for  "  un- 
derstanded  of."  If  Mr.  Wesley  had  omitted  this  article,  it  would 
not  have  mattered  much;  for  it  is  a  thing  plainly  repugnant  to 
common  sense,  as  well  as  to  the  word  of  God  and  the  custom  of 
the  primitive  Church,  to  conduct  divine  Avorship  in  a  language 
not  understood  by  the  people.  It  is  singular  that  the  title  of 
the  article  states  the  right,  while  the  article  itself  condemns  the 
wrong. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  PRACTICE  AND  ITS  APOLOGY. 

It  may  be  well  first  to  inquire  who  are  guilty  of  this  absurd- 
ity, and  why  they  do  it. 

§  1.  The  Religionists  Guilty  of  this  Practice. 

The  Jews  celebrate  public  worship  in  the  Hebrew.  They  do 
so  because  of  the  great  veneration  in  which  they  hold  this  sacred 
tongue,  and  because  they  teach  it  in  all  their  synagogue  schools. 
It  is  presumed  that  many  of  the  people  understand  it,  though 
the  great  bulk  of  them  know  but  little  of  it. 

The  Mohammedans  have  their  worship  in  Arabic,  the  language 
of  their  prophet.    Brerewood  says : 

Not  only  in  Arabia  and  Egypt  and  Barbary  and  Palestine  and  Syria  and  Mes- 
opotamia, in  which  parts  the  Arabic  tongue  is  become  the  vulgar  language,  the  Al- 
choran  is  read,  and  their  public  devotions  exercised,  in  Arabic;  but  also  in  Greece 
and  Natolia,  and  other  parts  of  the  Turkish  dominion,  where  the  Greek  and 
Turkish  and  Slavonian  tongues  are  vulgar,  as  also  in  Persia,  in  Tartary,  and  In- 
dia, where  they  have  other  native  and  peculiar  languages,  the  Mohammedans 
read  tlie  Alchoran  {which  they  supposed  were  profaned  if  it  were  translated  into 
vulgar  tongues),  and  perform  their  public  devotions  in  that  language. 

Speaking  "of  those  sects  of  Christians  that  celebrate  their  lit- 
urgies in  learned  and  foreign  tongues,  which  the  vulgar  people 
do  not  understand,"  Brerewood  says,  *'I  find  only  three  lan- 
guages v/herein  they  are  all  performed,  viz.,  the  Greek,  the  Latin, 
and  the  Chaldee  or  Syriac  tongues."  In  the  Chaldee,  or  Syriac, 
he  says,  are  celebrated  the  liturgies  of  the  Nestorians,  Jacobites, 
Copts,  Maronites,  and  the  Zocotorini;  of  none  of  whom  is  the 
Syriac  the  vernacular. 

Those  Christians  that  celebrate  their  liturgies  in  the  Greek 
tongue— meaning  ancient  Greek — are  the  Grecians  themselves, 
all  who  speak  modern  Greek;  the  Syrian  Melchites,  whose  ver- 
nacular is  the  Arabic;  the  Gregorians,  whose  language  Brerewood 
says  is  of  a  middle  temper  between  Tartarian  and  Armenian;  the 
Circassians,  and  the  monks  of  all  monasteries  of  the  Greek  relig- 
ion. We  should  think,  however,  that  those  who  understand  mod- 
(286) 


The  Practice  and  Its  Apology, 


287 


ern  Greek  would  find  but  little  difficulty  in  joining  in  the  ancient  * 
Greek  service. 

Those  who  celebrate  their  liturgies  in  Latin  comprehend  all 
who  are  of  the  Roman  Communion  in  America,  in  Africa,  in  Eu- 
rope (except  the  Slavonians),  and  in  Asia  (except  the  Maronites, 
in  Syria,  and  the  Christians  of  St.  Thomas,  in  India,  who  use  the 
Syriac). 

§  2.  The  Apology  Offered  for  the  Practice. 

This  singular  phenomenon  has  been  accounted  for  and  de- 
fended by  the  following  considerations: 

1.  These  three  languages  were  those  which  were  spoken  in 
those  parts  of  the  world  where  Christianity  first  took  root.  The 
Scriptures  were  written  or  translated-  and  liturgies  composed  in 
them,  so  that  they  were  considered  in  a  manner  sacred,  as  the 
Jews  considered  the  Hebrew  and  the  Mohammedans  the  Arabic. 
The  Christians  of  those  parts  naturally  wanted  to  retain  the  very 
words  of  the  Apostles  and  Fathers. 

2.  These  languages  were  a  long  time  becoming  obsolescent,  so 
that  it  was  not  easy  to  fix  upcgi  a  precise  time  when  the  old 
tongues  should  give  way  to  new  dialects. 

3.  It  was  argued,  and  is  still  argued,  that  the  faith  and  wor- 
ship are  better  preserved  by  retaining  these  old  tongues  than  by 
substituting  them  by  the  vernacular  languages.  This,  however, 
is  a  delusion.  The  faith  and  worship  of  the  Church  have  degen- 
erated far  more  among  those  who  retain  the  old  languages  in 
their  liturgies  tlian  among  those  who  use  the  vernacular.  The 
latter  still  retain  the  Scriptures,  Liturgies,  etc.,  in  their  original 
tongues,  j^nd  constantly  refer  to  them  to  settle  the  meaning  of 
any  expressions. 

4.  The  nations  speaking  those  ancient  tongues  wished  to  im- 
pose their  languages  upon  all  who  came  under  their  dominion. 
Especially  was  tliis  the  case  with  the  Eomans.    The  Latin  be- 

•  came  the  common  tongue  of  Europe.  Ecclesiastics  recognized 
Rome  as  their  center;  and  so  they  continued  to  use  the  Latin 
after  the  nations  of  Europe  had  modified  it  into  Italian,  French, 
Spanish,  etc. 

5.  But  the  great  reason  is  the  aggrandizement  of  the  hierarchy. 
It  made  their  segregation  more  complete.  Wherever  they  went 
they  celebrated  public  worship  in  the  same  tongue.  This  tended 
to  unify  the  Church.    There  was  romance  and  poetry  in  it.  The 


288 


Of  Speaking  in  the  Congregation,  etc. 


Miserere,  De  Profundis,  Jubilate,  Te  Deum,  Paternoster,  Credo,  and 
Gloria  Patri,  in  one  sacred  tongue,  sounded  round  the  world  like 
the  drum-roll  of  the  British  Empire,  which  is  the  Briton's  boast. 
If  there  be  any  force  in  this  argument,  or  in  any  other,  we  do 
not  feel  it,  and  know  not  how  to  break  it,  except  by  showing  that 
while  the  custom  seems  vastly  absurd  it  is  also  plainly  repug- 
nant to  the  word  of  God  and  the  custom  of  the  primitive  Church. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  PRACTICE  CONDEMNED  BY  SCRIPTURE  AND 
THE  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH. 

§  1.  By  Scripture. 

Let  us  refer  to  the  word  of  God.  It  is  only  incidentally— we 
had  almost  said,  by  chance— that  there  is  an  allusion  to  this  subject 
in  the  Scriptures.  Uninspired  men  would  never  have  imagined 
it  necessary  to  interdict  a  custom  so  absurd.  But  the  Holy  Spirit 
knew  what  is  in  man  and  of  what  he  is  capable,  and  hence  there  is 
one  trenchant  passage  which  settles  the  question,  we  were  going 
to  say,  without  controversy  or  cavil;  but  no  question  can  be  so 
settled — men  will  cavil  at  every  thing,  oppose  every  thing;  but 
to  every  candid  mind  the  language  of  the  apostle  in  1  Cor.  xiv. 
is  the  end  of  controversy  on  this  subject. 

The  Corinthians,  who  Avere  endowed  with  the  miraculous  gift  of 
tongues  for  the  confirmation  and  spi'ead  of  Christianity,  were  be- 
ginning to  make  an  ostentatious  display  of  this  wonderful  accom- 
plishment. For  this  the  apostle  rebukes  them :  "  Except  ye  utter 
by  the  tongue  words  easy  to  be  understood,  how  shall  it  be  known 
what  is  spoken?  for  ye  shall  speak  into  the  air."  "For  if  I  pray 
in  an  unknown  tongue,  my  spirit  prayeth,  but  my  understanding 
is  unfruitful.  What  is  it  then?  I  will  pray  with  the  spirit,  and  I 
Avill  pray  with  the  understanding  also :  I  will  sing  with  the  spir- 
it, and  I  will  sing  with  the  understanding  also.  Else  when  thou 
shalt  bless  with  the  spirit,  how  shall  he  that  occupieth  the  room 
of  the  unlearned  say  Amen  at  thy  giving  of  thanks,  seeing  he 
understandeth  not  what  thou  sayest?  For  thou  verily  givest 
thanks  well,  but  the  other  is  not  edified.  I  thank  my  God,  I 
speak  with  tongues  more  than  you  all :  yet  in  the  Church  I  had 
rather  speak  five  words  with  my  understanding,  that  by  my  voice 
I  might  teach  others  also,  than  ten  thousand  words  in  an  un- 
known tongue.  .  .  .  Let  all  things  be  done  unto  edifying.  .  .  . 
For  God  is  not  the  author  of  confusion,  but  of  peace,  as  in  all 
Churches  of  the  saints."  If  it  was  folly  for  the  Corinthians  to 
speak  with  foreign  tongues,  when  there  was  no  occasion  for  it  and 
19  Vol.  II.  (289) 


290 


Of  Speaking  in  the  Conrjrerjationf  etc. 


none  to  interpret  them,  what  folly  must  it  be  to  make  thattlie  law 
of  the  Church  all  over  the  world.  It  is  useless  to  speak  of  the  Lat- 
in as  being  universally  understood:  it  is  rather  universally  un- 
known. There  was  a  time  when  many  of  the  clergy  knew  little 
or  nothing  of  the  Latin  which  they  mumbled  and  muttered  in  the 
mass.  Some  know  none  too  much  of  it  now,  and  not  one  in  a 
thousand  of  their  hearers  (if  indeed  they  can  hear  any  thing  in 
the  mass)  understand  a  sentence  of  it.  Paul  decides  the  ques- 
tion: *'If  I  know  not  the  meaning  of  the  voice,  I  shall  be  unto 
him  that  speaketh  a  barbarian;  and  he  that  speaketh  shall  be  a 
barbarian  unto  me." 

§2.  By  the  Primitive  Church, 

Let  us  see  what  was  the  custom  of  the  primitive  Church. 
Brerewood  says: 

I  find  it  recorded  in  Diirandus  (but  upon  what  warrant  and  authority  I  cannot 
find)  that  till  the  time  of  Hadrian  the  Emperor  (that  is,  about  one  hundred  and 
twenty  years  after  Christ)  their  liturgies  were  all  celebrated  in  the  Hebrew  tongue; 
and  that  then  the  Oriental  Church  began  first  to  celebrate  them  in  Greek. 

By  Hebrew  he  understands  the  Syriac  then  in  use  among  the 
Jews.  He  thinks  it  likely  that  the  apostles  composed  liturgies  in 
the  Syriac  for  the  use  of  converted  Jews,  who  took  them  with 
them  in  their  dispersion.  But  there  is  no  proof  of  this,  and  much 
less  that  Gentile,  Greek-speaking,  Christians  used  these  Syriac 
formularies  in  their  churches. 

"That  anciently  divine  service  was  always  performed  in  the 
vulgar  tongue  understood  by  the  people,"  Bingham  proves:  1. 
From  plain  testimonies  of  the  ancients  asserting  it.  2.  From  the 
peop)le's  joining  in  psalmody  and  prayer,  and  making  their  prop- 
er responses  in  the  liturgy.  3.  From  the  exhortation  of  the  Fa- 
thers to  the  people,  to  hear  and  read  and  pray  with  understand- 
ing. 4  From  the  references  made  by  the  Fathers  in  their 
sermons  to  the  prayers  and  lessons  in  the  service  of  the  Church. 
5.  From  the  Scriptures  being  translated  into  all  languages  from 
the  first  foundation  of  Churches.  6.  From  the  use  of  the  order 
of  interpreters  in  the  Church.  7.  From  the  custom  of  having 
Bibles  laid  in  churches  for  the  people  to  read  in  private.  8. 
From  the  general  allowance  granted  to  all  men  to  have  and  read 
the  Scriptures  in  their  mother  tongue,  which  privilege  was  never 
infringed  by  any  but  the  heathen  persecutors.  9.  From  the  lib- 
erty granted  to  children  and  catechumens  to  join  in  the  public 


Condein7ied  hy  Scripture  and  the  Primitive  Church.  291 


prayer  and  read  the  Scriptures.  10.  From  tlie  form  and  license 
of  the  ordination  of  readers  in  the  Cliurch. 

Those  who  are  curious  to  see  all  these  points  established  are  re- 
ferred to  "  Bingham's  Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church,"  Book 
xiii.,  chap.  4.  As  no  reputable  disputant  will  contest  these  posi- 
tions, it  is  needless  to  discuss  them  in  this  place. 

It  was  the  custom  of  the  primitive  Church,  therefore,  to  con- 
duct public  worship  in  the  vernacular  tongues;  in  this  it  has  been 
followed,  says  Brerewood,  by  "  the  Armenians,  Habassians,  Mus- 
covites, with  Eussians,  Sclavonians,  and  Protestants." 

§  3.  Conclusion. 

Papists  say  this  is  not  a  matter  of  dogma,  but  of  discipline,  and 
so  may  be  varied  or  entirely  abolished.  Yet  they  have  allowed 
but  slight  variation  from  the  rule.  When  Catherine  de  Medi- 
cis  and  Ferdinand  approached  the  Council  of  Trent  on  this  sub- 
ject, their  demands  were  not  granted;  they  were  mildly  rejected: 
the  Council  re-enacting  existing  rules,  only  anathematizing  those 
who  say  that  mass  is  to  be  exclusively  celebrated  in  the  vernac- 
ular. The  Council  assigned  the  stereotyped  reasons  for  holding 
on  to  the  old  rule:  1.  That  as  modern  languages  change,  the 
terms  of  worship  might  be  altered,  and  so  give  rise  to  heresies. 
2.  The  greater  number  of  the  priests  would  not  be  able  to  say 
mass  in  other  than  their  native  countries.  3.  The  holy  myste- 
ries would  be  profaned  by  celebrating  them  in  the  vulgar  tongue. 
Bellarmin  says  there  is  no  necessity  of  the  people's  understand- 
ing what  the  priest  says;  God  understands  it:  absolution  and 
reconciliation  can  be  conferred  just  as  well  without  their  under- 
standing the  language  since  the  sacraments  work  ex  opere  operato. 
By  using  the  vernacular  any  one  might  act  as  priest,  and  this 
would  degrade  the  priesthood;  Latin  would  be  forgotten,  and 
they  would  not  be  able  to  read  the  Scriptures  (in  the  Latin  Vul- 
gate) nor  the  Latin  Fathers! 

This  much  must  be  said,  that  the  defense  of  this  absurd,  un- 
scriptural,  and  anti-patristic  custom  is  worthy  of  it.  No  more 
need  be  added. 


PART  IV. 
ARTICLE  XVI. 

Of  the  Sacraments. 

Sacraments,  ordained  of  Christ,  are  not  only  bacTges  or  tokens  of 
Christian  men' s prof ession,  hut  rather  they  are  certain  signs  of  grace, 
and  God's  good-icill  toward  us,  by  the  which  he  doth  irork  invisibly  in 
us,  and  doth  not  only  quicken,  but  also  strengthen  and  confirm  our 
faith  in  him. 

There  are  two  sacraments  ordained  of  Christ  our  Lord  in  the  gospel; 
that  is  to  say,  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord. 

Those  five,  commonly  called  sacraments — that  is  to  say.  Confirma- 
tion, Penance,  Orders,  Matrimony,  and  Extreme  Unction — are  not  to  be 
counted  for  sacraments  of  the  gospel,  being  such  as  have  partly  grown 
out  of  the  corrupt  following  of  the  apostles,  and  partly  are  states  of 
life  allowed  in  the Scriptures,but  yet  have  not  the  like  nature  of  Bap- 
tism and  the  Lord'*s-supper,  because  they  have  not  any  visible  sign  or 
ceremony  ordained  of  God. 

The  sacra)nents  were  not  ordained  of  Christ  to  he  gazed  upon,  or 
to  he  carried  about;  hut  that  we  should  duly  use  them.  And  in  such 
only  as  worthily  receive  the  same,  they  have  a  wholesome  effect  or  op- 
eration; hut  they  that  receive  them  unworthily  purchase  to  themselves 
condemnation  as  St.  Paul  saith,  1  Cor.  xi.  29. 


Introduction. 

This  article  is  tlie  same  as  Article  XXV.  of  the  Anglican  Con- 
fession, with  a  few  suggestive  changes  and  omissions  which  will 
be  noted  in  due  place. 

Burnet  says: 

There  is  a  great  diversity  between  the  form  of  this  article,  as  it  is  now  settled, 
and  that  published  by  King  Edward,  which  began  in  these  words:     Our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  gatliered  his  people  into  a  society  by  sacraments,  very  few  in  num- 
(292) 


4 


The  Sacraments. 


293 


bers,  most  easily  to  be  kept,  and  of  most  excellent  signification ;  that  is  to  say  Bap- 
tism and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord."  There  is  nothing  in  that  edition  instead  of 
the  paragraph  concerning  the  other  five  pretended  sacraments.  Next  comes  the 
paragraph  which  is  here  the  last,  only  with  the  addition  of  these  words  after  ope- 
ration: "Not  as  some  say,  ex  opere  operate,  which  terms,  as  they  are  strange  and 
utterly  unknown  to  the  Holy  Scripture,  so  do  they  vield  a  sense  which  savoreth 
of  little  piety,  but  of  much  superstition;"  and  in  conclusion  the  paragraph  conies 
with  which  the  article  does  now  begin;  so  that  in  all  this  diversity  there  is  no 
real  difference;  for  the  virtue  of  the  sacraments  being  put  in  the  worthy  receiv- 
ing excludes  the  doctrine  of  opus  operatum  as  formally  as  if  it  had  expressly  been 
condemned;  and  the  naming  tiie  two  sacraments  instituted  by  Christ  is  upon  the 
matter  the  rejecting  of  all  the  rest. 

The  articles  agreed  on  between  the  Lutheran  and  Anglican  Ke- 
formers  in  1538  had  one  article  (IX.)  to  the  same  purport  with 
this,  though  that  went  on  to  speak  of  Infant  Baptism.  Article 
XIII.  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  furnished  the  substance  of 
the  first  and  last  paragraphs  of  our  article: 

Concerning  the  use  of  tiie  sacraments  our  Clu;rches  teach  that  they  were  insti- 
tuted not  only  as  marks  of  a  Christian  profession  among  men,  but  rather  as  signs 
and  evidences  of  the  divine  disposition  toward  us,  tendered  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
citing and  confirming  the  faith  of  those  who  use  them.  Hence  the  sacraments 
ought  to  be  received  with  faith  in  the  promises  wliich  are  exhibited  and  pro- 
pounded by  them.  They  therefore  condemn  those  who  maintain  that  the  sacra- 
ments produce  justification  in  their  recipients  as  a  matter  of  course  (ex  opere  op- 
ei-ato),  and  who  do  not  teach  that  faith  is  necessary,  in  the  reception  of  the 
sacraments,  to  the  remission  of  sins. 

The  Latin  recensions  show  a  close  agreement.  For  "badges 
and  tokens  "  the  Latin  of  the  Anglican  has  one  word,  notcp^  which 
is  also  the  word  used  in  the  Augsburg.  The  word  rendered 
"exciting"  in  the  latter  is  excitanclant;  so  the  word  rendered 
"  quicken  "  in  the  former  is  excitat:  so  confinnandum  in  the  Augs- 
burg corresponds  to  confirmat  in  the  Anglican,  which  has  two 
words  in  tho  English — "strengthen  and  confirm,"  one  word  ex- 
plaining the  other.  Jo.  Elis  ought  not  in  his  Latin  version  to 
have  put  vivijicat  for  excitat,  because  of  its  ambiguity:  in  the 
Scriptures  it  generally  means  to  raise  to  life,  to  give  life  to  that 
which  had  it  not  before,  as  Eom.  viii.  11:  "Shall  quicken,  vivifi- 
cabit,  our  mortal  bodies;"  Eom.  iv.  17:  "God  who  quickeneth 
the  dead" — vivijicat  mortnos.  The  idea  intended,  by  excitat,  exci- 
tanchun,  is  to  excite  to  more  lively  action  that  which  is  already 
active;  as  the  recipient  of  the  sacraments  comes  to  them  with 
faith,  which  is  excited  and  strengthened  by  the  participation. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  SACRAMENTS  IN  GENERAL. 

The  first  paragraph  in  our  recension  reads  thus: 

Sacraments,  ordained  of  Christ,  are  not  only  badges  or  tokens  of  Christian  men's 
profession,  but  rather  they  are  certain  signs  of  grace,  and  God's  good-will  toward 
UP,  by  the  which  he  doth  work  invisibly  in  us,  and  doth  not  only  quicken,  but  also 
strengthen  and  confirm  our  faith  in  him. 

§  1.  Mr.  Wesley's  Changes. 

The  slight  changes  and  omissions  made  by  Mr.  Wesley  are  ju- 
dicious, as,  "are"  for  "be,"  and  the  omission  of  the  words 
"sure  witnesses  and  effectual "  [between  " certain"  and  "  signs  of 
grace"].  "Certain  signs  of  grace  and  God's  good-will  toward 
us  "  expresses  all  that  is  necessary.  The  terms  "  sure  witnesses 
and  effectual  signs  "  were  introduced  in  opposition  to  Zuinglian- 
ism,  but  that  is  opposed  in  the  next  sentence;  and  though  the 
word  "effectual,"  may  be  used  in  an  orthodox  sense,  yet  it  may 
be  employed  to  countenance  the  opus  operafiim  error.  It  is  enough 
to  say  in  the  article  that  by  the  sacraments  "God  doth  work  in- 
visibly in  us."  In  devotional  poetry,  when  the  connection  shows 
the  sense  in  which  the  terms  are  employed,  it  is  all  very  well: 

The  sacred,  true,  effectual  sign, 
TJiy  body  and  thy  blood  it  shows; 

The  glorious  instrument  divine 

Thy  merry  and  thy  strength  bestows. 

Bishop  Browne  says:  "The  whole  article  is  introductory  to  the 
six  [four  in  our  Confession]  next  in  order  after  it,  and  is  rather 
concerned  with  definitions  than  aught  else."  That  is  a  very  good 
observation,  only  we  should  hardly  use  the  word  "definitions:  " 
rather  general  statements,  or  descriptions.  So  Bishop  Burnet: 
"It  was  most  natural  to  begin  thus  with  a  description  of  sacra- 
ments in  general." 

§  2.  The  Definition  of  a  Sacrament. 
Wo  must  go  to  the  Catechism  for  a  definition  of  a  Sacrament, 
where  we  have  the  best  ever  conceived: 
(294 j 


The  Sacraments  in  General. 


295 


IIow  many  sacraments  hath  Christ  ordained  in  his  Church?  Two:  Baptism 
and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord. 

What  mean  you  by  the  word  sacrament  ?  I  mean  an  outward  and  visible  sign 
of  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace,  given  unto  us,  ordained  by  Christ  himself,  as  a 
means  whereby  we  receive  the  same,  and  a  pledge  to  assure  us  thereof. 

Nothing  can  be  more  to  the  point  than  that.  There  is  nothing 
wanting,  nothing  redundant,  nothing  ambiguous  in  this  defini- 
tion. It  a-grees  precisely  with  the  description  and  statement  in 
the  article,  and  throws  great  light  upon  it. 

1.  According  to  the  Catechism  a  sacrament  is  a  "sign."  It  is 
something  outward  and  visible,  addressed  to  the  senses,  espe- 
cially to  the  sight.  As  such,  it  is  a  sign  of  something  that  is  not 
apprehensible  by  the  senses,  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace:  "  the 
sanctification  of  the  spirit"  in  Baptism;  "  the  communion  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ "  in  the  Lord's-supper.  The  "  sign," 
in  those  who  "  show  it  forth,"  is  a  badge  of  their  profession  as 
Christians. 

2.  A  sacrament  is  an  ordinance  of  divine  institution.  It  is 
"  ordained  by  Christ  himself,"  not  by  the  Church.  So  the  arti- 
cle asserts  sacraments  are  "  ordained  of  Christ,"  and  none  else 
are  recognized  as  "  sacraments  of  the  gospel."  This  restricts 
their  number  to  two:  Christ  ordained  none  besides. 

3.  A  sacrament  is  a  means  of  grace,  an  instrument  to  convey 
the  grace  which  it  represents:  a  means,  not  the  means,  as  if 
there  were  no  other.  He  who  worthily  receives  baptism,  receives 
with  it  and  by  it  the  sanctifying  grace  which  it  signifies.  He 
who  worthily  receives  the  Lord's-supper  spiritually  eats  the 
flesh  and  drinks  the  blood  of  Christ,  which  it  represents.  So  the 
article  affirms  that  by  the  sacraments  "God  doth  work  invisibly 
in  us,  and  doth  not  only  quicken,  but  also  strengthen  and  confirm 
our  faith." 

4.  A  sacrament  is  a  pledge  of  the  grace  which  it  signifies.  It 
ratifies  and  confirms  the  grace  and  good- will  of  God  toward  us, 
as  the  article  expresses  it.  It  is  a  pignorative  ordinance;  this  is 
its  grand  distinction.  It  is  not  only  a  signum  significanSj  or  act 
which  notifies  or  declares  something,  but  it  is  also  signum  confir- 
mans,  an  obsignation:  the  parties  concerned  in  covenant  trans- 
action set  their  seal  to  it,  and  thus  God  confirms  his  grace  to 
us,  and  our  faith  in  him  is  confirmed  and  our  promise  of  obedi- 
ence ratified.  This  is  well  set  forth  in  a  familiar  hymn  by  Dr. 
Watts: 


296 


The  Sacraments. 


The  promise  of  my  Father's  love 

Shall  stand  forever  good  : 
He  said,  and  gave  liis  soul  to  death, 

And  sealed  the  grace  with  blood. 

To  this  dear  covenant  of  thy  word  . 
I  set  my  worthless  name; 
•  I  seal  th'  engagement  to  my  Lord, 

And  make  my  humble  claim. 

Thy  light,  and  strength,  and  pardoning  grace, 

And  glory,  shall  be  mine; 
My  life  and  soul,  my  heart  and  flesh, 

And  all  my  powers,  are  thine. 

The  Westminster  Catechism  somewhat  expands  the  subject  in 
its  definition  of  a  sacrament,  but  it  is  to  the  same  effect: 

A  sacrament  is  a  lioly  ordinance,  instituted  by  Christ  in  liis  Church,  to  signify, 
seal,  and  exhibit  unto  those  witliin  the  covenant  of  grace  the  benefits  of  his  media- 
tion; to  strengthen  and  increase  their  faitli,  and  all  other  graces;  to  oblige  them 
to  obedience;  to  testify  and  cherish  their  love  and  communion  one  with  another; 
and  to  distinguish  them  from  those  that  are  without. 

§  3.  The  Word  Sacrament. 

The  word  sacrament  casts  but  little  light  on  the  subject.  In- 
deed, it  may  be  doubted  whether  any  thing  has  been  gained  by 
introducing  it  into  theology.  It  is  not  a  Scripture  word,  though 
sacramentum  is  used  in  the  Vulgate  (Eph.  v.  32;  Kev.  i.  20)  for 
"  mystery  '*  [Greek,  iwffzrjpurJ].  It  comes  from  sacer,  sacred,  and 
denotes  any  thing  sacred:  hence  a  sacred  deposit,  or  pledge;  also 
an  oath,  especially  the  military  oath  which  Roman  soldiers  took 
to  be  faithful  to  their  country  and  to  obey  their  general. 

The  Fathers  frequently  ax)ply  the  word  in  the  general  sense  to 
any  thing  sacred.  Cyprian  speaks  of  the  many  sacraments  con- 
tained in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  calls  the  three  hours  of  prayer  a 
sacrament  of  the  Trinity.  Tertullian  says  the  heathen  charged 
the  Christians  with  "  the  sacrament  of  infanticide."  The  Fathers 
spoke  of  the  two  sacraments,  water  and  chrism,  in  Baptism; 
and  of  two  also,  bread  and  wine,  in  the  Lord's-sapper. 

Still,  the  word  had  also  a  restricted  use.  Pliny,  in  his  cele- 
brated Epistle  97  to  Trajan,  says  the  Christians  were  accustomed 
to  meet  together  on  a  certain  fixed  day  before  sunrise,  when 
they  sung  hymns  to  Christ  as  to  God,  and  bound  themselves  by 
a  sacrament  not  to  commit  any  wickedness.  Pliny  possibly 
meant  by  sacrament  simply  an  oath;  but  it  is  generally  thought 


The  Sacraments  in  General. 


297 


lie  referred  to  the  Eucharist,  as  Pliny  repeated  what  the  Chris- 
tians themselves  had  told  him. 

TertuUian  applies  the  word  to  the  baptismal  vow;  and  he  calls 
baptism  Sacramentum  Fidel,  Aqiice,  Lavacri;  and  the  Lord's-sup- 
per  Sacramentum  Euchaiistice.  So  Augustin  and  other  Latin  Fa- 
thers. The  Greek  Fathers  use  tile  word  mystery  with  similar 
latitude,  and  with  similar  restriction. 

§  4.  Historical. 

As  to  the  sacraments  ordained  by  Christ,  the  Fathers  spoke  in 
terms  of  exaggeration  concerning  their  virtue,  laying  the  foun- 
dation for  the  Romish  theories  of  baptismal  regeneration  and 
transubstantiation,  of  which  we  shall  have  more  to  say  when  we 
come  to  the  following  articles.  The  Reformers  generally  leaned 
too  much  in  that  direction,  while  they  renounced  the  gross  views 
held  by  Romanists.  One  of  the  most  zealous  of  the  Reformers, 
however,  seems  to  have  gone  to  the  opposite  extreme.  Zuingli- 
us  is  represented  as  entirely  rejecting  sacramental  grace  and  hold- 
ing that  sacraments  are  bare  signs,  outward  tokens  of  Christian 
profession,  but  in  no  sense  means  of  grace.    He  says: 

A  sacrament  is  an  external  symbol,  by  wliicli  we  testify  what  Ave  are,  and  what 
is  our  duty,  just  as  one  who  bears  a  national  badge  testifies  that  he  belongs  to  that 
nation.  A  sacrament  is  the  sign  of  a  sacred  tiling;  when,  therefore,  I  speak  of  the 
sacrament  of  Christ's  body,  I  mean  no  more  than  that  bread  which  is  the  figure 
and  type  of  Christ's  body. 

Luther  violently  opposed  Zuinglius  for  holding  these  views, 
and  in  so  doing  came  very  near  affirming  the  Romish  doctrine 
of  the  sacraments.  Calvin  tried  to  steer  a  middle  course,  but  it 
is  very  difficult  to  define  his  views  on  this  subject.    He  says: 

Though  the  sacraments  are  figures,  yet  they  are  not  naked  and  empty  figures, 
but  having  their  truth  and  substance  united  to  them;  not  only  representing,  but 
offering,  grace.  We  ought  never  to  separate  the  substance  of  the  sacraments  from 
the  sacraments  themselves.  We  ought  not  indeed  to  confound  them,  but  to  rend 
them  asunder  is  absurd. 

The  Anglican  Reformers,  as  Bishop  Browne  says,  "symbol- 
ized not  with  Zuinglius,  but  with  Calvin, .  though  not  deriving 
their  views  from  him." 

The  Socinians  generally  adopt  the  views  accredited  to  Zuin- 
glius, and  so  do  many  of  the  orthodox  English  Non-conformists. 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  Zuinglius  has  been  fairly  repre- 
sented.   One  can  hardly  think  that  he  denied  that  the  sacra- 


298 


The  Sacraments, 


ments  are  means  of  grace.  He  certainly  denied  that  they  were 
such  means  of  grace  as  Luther  represented  them.  As  to  Cal- 
vin's via  media,  we  have  never  seen  any  one  yet  that  understood  it. 
When  he  says,  "  We  ought  never  to  separate  the  substance  of 
the  sacraments  from  the  sacraments  themselves;  we  ought  not 
indeed  to  confound  them,  but  to  rend  them  asunder  is  absurd," 
he  says  what  Zuinglius  and  every  other  man  of  common  sense 
would  say,  only  perhaps  in  less  ambiguous  language.  For  ex- 
ample, we  suppose  Zuinglius  would  say  that  as  baptism  symbol- 
izes regeneration,  every  one  who  is  baptized  ought  to  realize  the 
thing  signified:  he  should  not  only  be  born  of  water,  but  also  of  ♦ 
the  Spirit.  So  every  one  who  partakes  of  the  bread  and  wine 
in  the  other  sacrament  ought  to  feed  upon  Christ  by  faith,  as 
that  is  what  is  thus  symbolized.  There  is  no  other  real,  spirit- 
ual presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  but  that. 

§  5.  The  First  Paragraph  Directed  Against  the  Zuinglian 

View. 

But,  howsoever,  the  first  paragraph  in  oar  article  is  evidently 
directed  against  the  so-called  Zuinglian  view- of  the  sacraments. 
Sacraments  are  not  mere  badges  or  tokens  of  Christian  men's 
profession:  they  are  symbols  of  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace, 
and  are  important  means  whereby  we  receive  it,  and  also  a 
pledge  to  assure  us  thereof. 

None  can  come  to  the  baptismal  font  or  the  Lord's  table  in  a  be- 
coming manner  without  realizing  the  grace  symbolized  in  the 
ordinance,  which  is  a  visible  sign  and  certain  pledge  of  God's 
good- will  toward  us.  By  the  great  truths  which  the  sacraments 
exhibit,  accompanied  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  our 
faith  is  greatly  excited  and  confirmed.  The  gospel  addressed  to 
our  ears  in  preaching  is  addressed  to  other  senses  also  in  the 
sacraments,  which  are  thus  specially  adapted  to  our  condition 
while  our  spirits  are  enshrined  in  bodies  of  flesh  and  blood. 
Whatever  Quakers  and  others  may  say  to  the  contrary,  we  need 
such  simple  ordinances  in  which  our  senses  are  addressed,  and 
through  this  medium  spiritual  subjects  are  brought  down  to  our 
comprehension. 

My  Saviour,  God,  my  sovereign  Prince, 

Reigns  far  above  the  skies; 
But  brings  his  graces  down  to  sense, 

And  helps  my  faith  to  vise. 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  FIVE  PSEUDO-SACRAMENTS. 

§  1.  The  Two  Sacraments  Ordained  of  Christ. 

The  second  paragraph  of  the  article  reads  thus: 

There  are  two  sacraments  ordained  of  Christ  our  Lord  in  the  gospel;  that  is  to 
say,  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord. 

By  saying  there  are  two  sacraments  ordained  by  Christ,  the 
article  virtually  says  there  are  but  two:  so  that  if  there  were 
no  succeeding  clause  repudiating  the  five  additional  spurious 
sacraments  which  have  been  foisted  in  to  make  "  the  Seven  Sac- 
raments," this  clause  is  sufficient  to  restrict  the  number  to  two. 

There  has  always  been  in  the  Church  of  England  a  hankering 
by  the  High-church  divines  after  "  the  Seven  Sacraments,"  giv- 
ing the  prominence  to  Baptism  and  the  Lord's-supper  as  form- 
ally ordained  by  Christ  in  the  gospel,  but  allowing  the  other 
five  as  ordained  by  the  apostles  and  practiced  by  the  Church. 
The  answer  in  the  Anglican  Catechism  to  the  question,  "How 
many  sacraments  hath  Christ  ordained  in  his  Church?  "  seems  to 
look  in  this  direction:  "Two  only,  as  generally  necessary  to  sal- 
vation; that  is  to  say,  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord."  The 
part  of  the  Catechism  which  refers  to  the  sacraments  was  pre- 
pared at  the  instance  of  King  James  L,  by  Bishop  Overall,  then 
Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  and  was  allowed  by  the  Bishops.  It  is  a 
source  of  satisfaction  to  us  that  Mr.  "Watson,  in  compiling  oar 
Catechism,  omitted  the  ambiguous  clause,  "  as  generally  neces- 
sary to  salvation." 

§  2.  The  Five  Spurious  Sacraments  Repudiated. 

But  as  the  articles  which  follow  treat  of  the  two  sacraments 
severally,  we  will  pass  on  to  notice  the  third  paragraph  of  the 
article,  in  which  the  spurious  sacraments  are  repudiated. 

These  five  commonly  called  sacraments — that  is  to  say,  Confirmation,  Penance, 
Orders,  Matrimony,  and  Extreme  Unction — are  not  to  be  counted  for  sacraments 
of  the  gospel,  being  such  as  have  partly  grown  out  of  the  conmpt  following  of  the 
apostles,  and  partly  are  states  of  life  allowed  in  the  Scriptures,  but  yet  have  not  the 

(299) 


300 


The  Sacraments. 


like  nature  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's-supper,  because  they  Jiave  not  any  visible 
sign  or  ceremony  ordained  of  God. 

This  is  the  same  as  in  the  English  book,  except  that  the  lat- 
ter has  this  language:  "But  yet  have  not  like  nature  of  Sacra- 
ments with  Baptism  and  the  Lord's-supper,  for  that  they  have 
not  any  visible  sign  or  ceremony  ordained  of  God."  Ours  is  an 
improvement. 

Our  objection  to  calling  the  five  things  here  specified  sacra- 
ments, is  not  because  of  the  word  itself.  This,  as  we  have  seen, 
is  not  a  Scripture  term:  it  may  be,  as  it  has  been,  applied  to  a 
great  many  things  considered  sacred.  But  the  objection  is  to 
its  restriction  to  "  Seven,"  if  it  be  extended  beyond  Two."  The 
word  should  be  confined  to  the  two  "sealing  ordinances"  insti- 
tuted by  Christ  for  perpetual  observance  in  the  Church,  or  else 
it  should  be  used  indefinitely  like  the  words  rites,  ceremonies, 
and  the  like. 

It  is  absurd  and  mischievous  to  rank  these  other  five  with  the 
two  sacraments  "ordained  of  Christ  our  Lord."  Of  these  five, 
three  "have  grown  out  of  the  corrupt  following  of  the  apostles," 
to  wit,  "Confirmation,  Penance,  and  Extreme  Unction;"  and  two 
"are  states  of  life  allowed  in  the  Scriptures,"  to  wit,  "Orders 
and  Matrimony;"  "but  yet  have  not  the  like  nature  of  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's-supper,  because  they  have  not  any  visible  sign 
or  ceremony  ordained  of  God." 

§3.  Historical. 

The  Eomanizing  party  in  the  Church  of  England  venture  to 
call  all  these  sacraments,  and  they  administer  four  of  them  as 
such,  and  long  for  tlie  restoration  of  the  fifth  to  make  the  num- 
ber seven,  as  in  "our  sister  Church  of  Rome."  Thus  Bishop 
Forbes  calls  "  the  Unction  of  the  Sick  the  lost  pleiad  of  the  An- 
glican firmament,"  and  "recommends  its  restoration."  There 
must  be  seven  stars,  of  course. 

The  Greek  Church  holds  to  the  Seven  Mysteries,  but  they  do 
not  all  correspond  to  the  Bomish  sacraments.  Brerewood  says: 
"It  rejects  Extreme  Unction  and  Confirmation."  These  state- 
ments are  reconciled  by  noting  that  Confirmation  is  adminis- 
tered by  priests  as  well  as  bishops,  and  to  infants  as  well  as 
adults,  and  that  in  immediate  connection  with  Baptism.  Instead 
of  extreme  unction  they  have  Euchelaion^  the  oil  of  prayer,  which 


The  Five  Pseudo-sacraments. 


301 


may  be  administered  to  any  person  who  is  sick,  and  that  repeat- 
edly, in  order  to  liis  recovery. 

The  Syrian  Churches,  in  like  manner,  speak  of  seven  Mys- 
teries or  Sacraments;  but  they  use  the  term  in  a  loose  sense,  and 
their  authorities  differ  in  regard  to  the  particular  offices  to  be 
included  within  the  sacred  number.* 

The  Eomish  Church  is  very  emphatic  in  maintaining  the  Seven 
Sacraments,  and  considers  it  damnable  heresy  to  deny  that  there 
are  seven.  The  Schoolmen,  before  the  twelfth  century,  con- 
tended about  their  number.  But  in  that  century  Peter  of  Lom- 
bardy  determined  their  number,  thus:  Baptism,  the  Lord's-sup- 
per.  Confirmation  (of  catechumens).  Ordination,  Extreme  Unc- 
tion, Auricular  Confession  (Penance),  and  Wedlock.  He  was 
followed  in  this  by  the  leading  authorities  of  Eome,  and  it  Avas 
established  as  a  dogma  by  the  Council  of  Florence,  A.D.  1442, 
and  re-affirmed  by  the  Council  of  Trent  A.D.  1547. 

§  4.  Romish  Arguments  for  the  Number  Seven. 

The  Komish  doctors  exercise  their  ingenuity  in  adducing  ar- 
guments for  the  number  seven. 

1.  Scripture:  Ex.  xxv.,  the  seven  lights  of  the  golden  candle- 
stick: the  seven  sacraments  being  thus  symbolized  as  tliey  are 
so  many  lights  which  illuminate  the  Church.  So  Prov.  ix. : 
"  AVisdom,"  that  is,  Christ,  hath  built  her  house,"  the  Church, 
"  and  hath  cut  out  her  seven  pillars,"  to  wit,  the  Seven  Sacra- 
ments.   This  is  unanswerable. 

2.  The  traditions  of  the  Fathers  alluded  to  are  not  to  the 
point,  as  has  been  seen. 

3.  The  decrees  of  Councils  are  alike  impertinent.  The  Ecu- 
menical Councils  say  nothing  about  the  number  seven.  The 
Councils  of  Florence  and  Trent  are  of  no  authority.  AVe  object 
to  them  because  they  enacted  sacli  canons  as  these.  They  pre- 
tended to  prescriptive  right,  and  their  divines  argue  that  because 
their  councils  so  decreed,  it  must  always  have  been  so,  and  must 
remain  so  forever.  • 

4.  They  even  go  so  far  as  to  argue  for  this  number  from  fanci- 
ful analogies — e.  g.,  seven  is  the  number  of  perfection.  There 
are  seven  days  in  the  week;  seven  cardinal  virtues;  seven  mortal 
sins;  seven  planets ;  seven  stages  in  a  man's  life.    This  last  anal- 


*  See  Dr.  Etheridge,  in  his  valuable  work  on  "  The  Syrian  Churches,"  pp.  95,  96. 


302 


The  Sacraments. 


ogy  was  adduced  by  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  indorsed  by  the  Fkjr- 
entine  fathers.  It  is  fully  set  forth  in  the  Catechism  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  pp.  106,  107.  ["It  was  supposed,"  says  Dr. 
Pope,  "tijat  each  was  symbolized  by  or  symbolized  one  of  the 
seven  cardinal  virtues,  Faith,  Love,  Hope,  Wisdom,  Temperance, 
Courage,  Righteousness;  they  were  explained  by  the  analogy  of 
the  spiritul  life  with  the  physical,  as  to  Birth,  Growth  into  adult 
age.  Nourishment,  Healing,  Reproduction,  Instruction,  Death; 
and  so  forth.  .  .  .  It  is  remarkable  that  the  Greek  and  the 
Roman  Communions,  differing  in  so  much  besides,  agree  in  ac- 
cepting seven  sacraments.  Both  base  their  acceptance  on  the 
authority  of  the  Church  as  interpreting  the  will  of  Christ,  and 
vindicate  them  as  enfolding  and  hedging  round  and  sanctifying 
the  whole  of  life  at  its  several  stages:  Baptism  is  the  sanctifi- 
cation  of  birth,  Confirmation  of  adult  life.  Penance  of  the  life  of 
daily  sin,  tlie  Eucharist  of  life  itself,  Orders  of  legitimate  au- 
thority, Matrimony  of  the  Church's  law  of  continuance  and  in- 
crease, and  Unction  of  the  departure  hence." 

These  arguments  have  one  merit:  if  they  are  utterly  worthless, 
they  are  unanswerable. 

To  show  that  the  dogma  of  the  Seven  Sacraments  is  binding 
upon  every  Romanist,  we  refer  to  the  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  lY., 
the  authorized  symbol  of  the  Romish  Church. 

I  also  profess  that  there  are  truly  and  properly  seven  sacraments  of  the  new 
law,  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  and  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  man- 
kind, though  not  all  for  every  one,  to  wit,  baptism,  confirmation,  eucharist,  pen- 
ance, extreme  unction,  orders,  and  matrimony,  and  that  they  confer  grace;  and 
that  of  those,  baptism,  confirmation,  and  orders  cannot  be  reiterated  without  sac- 
rilege. 

The  Reformed  Churches,  with  great  unanimity,  hold  that  there 
are  but  two  sacraments.  The  Lutheran  Reformers  of  the  six- 
teenth century  restricted  the  word  sacrament  to  Baptism  and 
the  Lord's-supper.  This  induced  the  Council  of  Trent  to  issue 
its  canons  and  curses  in  regard  to  the  Seven  Sacraments.  Hen- 
ry VIII.  also  wrote  his  book  on  "  The  Seven  Sacraments,"  in  op- 
position to  Luther,  and  by  it  gained  from  the  Pope  the  title  of 
"  Defender  of  the  Faith."  The  number  of  the  sacraments  is  not 
specified  in  the  Augsburg  Confession.  In  the  Apology  for  that 
Confession,  by  Melanchthon,  it  is  said  that  nothing  depends  upon 


Compendium,"  etc.,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  305,  306. 


The  Five  Pseudo'Sacmments. 


303 


the  use  of  the  word,  or  upon  the  number,  if  the  thing  itself  is 
rightly  understood  so  that  human  institutions  are  not  ranked 
with  divine. 

Bellarmin,  Oberthiir,  and  some  other  eminent  Komish  divines 
admit  that  Baptism  and  the  Lord's-supper  are  the  most  impor- 
tant of  the  sacraments,  and  Oberthiir  confesses  that  Christ  ex- 
pressly and  immediately  appointed  only  two  sacraments,  thus 
agreeing  with  the  Protestants,  but  that  Christ  authorized  the 
Church  to  add  others— which  is  popery  again. 

The  English  Reformers  did  not  all  at  once  settle  down  upon 
the  Protestant  doctrine  on  this  subject.  The  Articles  about 
Religion,  A.D.  1536,  and  the  Necessary  Doctrine,  A.D.  1543, 
in  King  Henry's  reign,  speak  of  seven  sacraments.  The  First 
Book  of  Homilies,  A.D.  1547,  in  King  Edward's  reign,  speaks 
of  *'  the  Sacrament  of  Matrimony,"  and  that  too  after  speaking 
of  the  "  Sacrament  of  Baptism."  Cranmer's  Catechism  speaks 
of  three  sacraments  as  instituted  by  Christ— Baptism,  Absolu- 
tion, and  the  Lord's-supper.  But  the  true  Protestant  doctrine 
was  crystallized  in  this  article  and  in  the  Catechism. 

Let  us  now  notice  these  supernumerary  sacraments,  and  see 
if  the  Church  is  not  right  in  rejecting  them,  as  sacraments. 

§  5.  Confirmation. 

The  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  says: 

This  sacrament  is  called  confirmation  because,  if  no  obstacle  is  opposed  to  its 
eflScacy,  the  person  who  receives  it,  when  anointed  with  the  sacred  chrism  by  the 
hand  of  the  bishop,  who  accompanies  the  unction  with  these  words,  "I  sign  thee 
with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  confirm  thee  with  the  chrism  of  solvation,  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  confirmed  in 
strength  by  receiving  new  virtue,  and  becomes  a  perfect  soldier  of  Christ. 

The  canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent  on  Confirmation  are  as 

follows: 

1.  Whoever  shall  affirm  that  the  confirmation  of  the  baptized  is  a  trifling  cer- 
emony, and  not  a  true  or  proper  sacrament;  or  that  formerly  it  was  nothing  more 
than  a  kind  of  catechising,  in  which  the  neighboring  young  persons  exulained  the 
reasons  of  their  faith  before  the  Church:  let  him  be  accursed. 

2.  Whoever  shall  affirm  that  they  oflfend  the  Holy  Spirit  who  attribute  any 
virtue  to  the  said  chrism  of  confirmation:  let  him  be  accursed. 

3.  Whoever  shall  affirm  that  the  usual  administrator  of  confirmation  is  not  the 
bishop  only,  but  any  ordinary  priest:  let  him  be  accursed. 

The  chrism  is  composed  of  oil  of  olives  and  balsam,  consecrat- 
ed by  a  bishop.    This  is  the  matter  of  confirmation;  and  it  sym- 


304 


TJte  Sacraments. 


bolizes  the  manifold  graces  of  the  Holy  Spirit  whi-ch  are  thus 
imparted.  It  is  put  on  the  forehead  in  the  form  of  a  cross,  by  a 
bishop:  the  only  adniinistrator.  The  form  of  confirmation  con- 
sists of  the  words  already  cited,  together  with  prayer  and  impo- 
sition of  hands,  a  slap  on  the  cheek,  a  kiss  of  peace,  and  other 
puerile  ceremonies:  a  godfather  for  a  male  and  a  godmother 
for  a  female  subject,  etc.  The  subject  may  be  one  newly  bap- 
tized, if  not  younger  than  seven  years.  It  is  not  necessary  to  say 
any  thing  more  as  to  the  character  of  this  sacrament.  Let  us 
see  how  it  is  defended. 

Though  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  in  Scripture  of  the 
sacrament,  or  even  the  rite  of  confirmation,  yet  Eomanists  have 
the  hardihood  to  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  for  its  support. 

The  Eoman  Catechism  says: 

Describing  this  admirable  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  St.  Luke  says,  "And  sud- 
denly there  came  a  sound  from  lieaven,  as  of  a  mighty  wind  coming,  and  it  iilled  the 
Avhole  house  -where  they  were  sitting;"  and  a  little  after,  "  and  they  were  all  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost."  From  these  words  we  may  infer  that  as  the  liouse  in  which 
they  were  assembled  was  a  type  and  figure  of  the  Church,  the  sacrament  of  con- 
firmation, which  had  its  existence  for  the  first  time  on  that  day,  is  intended  for  the 
use  of  all  the  faithful.  This  is  also  an  easy  inference  from  the  nature  of  the  sac- 
rament. It  is  the  earnest  desire  of  the  Catholic  Church,  the  common  mother  of 
all,  that  those  whom  she  has  regenerated  by  baptism  may  be  brought  to  perfect 
maturity  in  Christ.  This  happy  consummation  can  be  accomplished  only  through 
the  mystic  unction  of  confirmation;  and  hence  it  is  clear  that  this  sacrament  is 
equally  intended  for  all  the  faithful.  This  extraordinary  efficacy  of  confirmation 
the  Scriptures  beautifully  express  by  a  metaphor:  "  Stay  you  in  the  city,"  says  our 
Lord,  speaking  of  this  sacrament,  "until  you  be  indued  with  power  from  on  high." 

Now,  how  can  any  one  answer  su3h  reasoning  as  that?  It  is 
an  insult  to  one's  understanding  to  reply  to  proofs  so  irrelevant. 
The  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  on  the  disciples,  on  the  Day  of 
Pentecost,  was  the  Sacrament  of  Confirmation!  Pray,  who  was 
the  bishop  that  administered  it?  Does  Luke  say  any  thing  about 
the  unction  on  the  forehead,  the  percussion  of  the  face,  the  im- 
position of  hands  on  the  head,  the  mystic  words — the  matter  and 
form  of  this  wonderful  sacrament?  Not  a  syllable.  Then,  it  is 
a  rich  idea:  Apostles  receiving  the  sacrament  of  confirmation, 
though  Avho  was  the  bishop  to  administer  it  we  are  not  informed! 
Mind,  the  Catechism  says  expressly  that  the  sacrament  of  confir- 
mation had  its  existence  for  the  first  time  on  the  Day  of  Pente- 
cost; and  it  is  bound,  therefore,  to  show  not  merely  that  the  Holy 
Si^irit  in  his  miraculous  gifts  was  poured  out  upon  the  disciples 


The  Five  PseudO'Sacramerds. 


305 


on  that  day,  which  is  what  Luke  says,  but  also  that  a  bishop  was 
there  to  anoint  with  unction,  lay  on  hands,  speak  the  mystic 
words,  *'I  sign  thee  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,"  etc.,  without 
which  matter  and  form  there  is  no  sacrament.  Everybody  who 
is  not  daft  knows  tliat  there  was  nothing  of  all  this  connected 
with  the  Pentecostal  prodigy  recorded  in  Acts  ii. 
But  the  Catechism  refers  us  to  Acts  viii.  14,  16: 

That  bishops  alone  are  tlie  ordinary  ministerf?  of  this  sacrament  is  tlie  doctrine 
of  Scripture,  we  read  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  that  when  Samaria  had  re- 
ceived tlie  gospel,  Peter  and  John  were  sent  to  them  that  they  might  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost;  *'for  he  was  not  yet  come  upon  any  of  tliem,  but  they  were  only  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  Here  we  find  that  he  who  administered 
baptism,  havins  only  attained  the  degree  of  deacon,  had  no  power  to  administer 
confirmation ;  its  administration  was  reserved  to  a  more  elevated  order  of  the  min- 
istry— that  is,  to  the  apostles  alone.  Whenever  the  sacred  Scriptures  speak  of  this 
sacrament  they  convey  to  us  the  same  truth. 

That  is  so:  but  then  they  never  "speak  of  this  sacrament." 
As  so  much  capital  has  been  made  out  of  what  Peter  did  in  Sa- 
maria [by  Anglicans  as  well  as  Komanists],  let  us  look  a  little  into 
the  case- 

1.  Who  were  Peter  and  John?  Were  they  bishops?  They 
certainly  were  not.  Apostles  were  not  bishops.  They  are  never 
called  bishops  in  the  Scriptures.  The  duties  of  the  apostles  were 
incompatible  with  those  of  the  Episcopate. 

2.  Are  bishops  apostles?  They  are  not.  They  are  nowhere 
so  styled  in  the  Scriptures.  As  we  have  shown  elsewhere,  they 
were  invested  with  none  of  the  functions  peculiar  to  apostles. 

3.  Did  Peter  sign  the  catechumens  at  Samaria  with  unction 
and  the  figure  of  the  cross  on  their  foreheads,  using  the  formula 
of  the  sacrament,  I  sign  thee  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,"  etc., 
adding  the  slap  in  the  face,  the  kiss  of  peace? 

4.  For  what  purpose  did  Peter  and  John  lay  hands  on  these 
Samaritan  neophytes?  Was  it  not  that  they  might  "receive  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  just  as  the  disciples  received  the  Holy  Ghost  on 
the  Day  of  Pentecost,  in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  and  at  Ephe- 
Bus,  when  the  Apostle  Paul  laid  his  hands  upon  the  twelve  dis- 
ciples of  John,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them,  and  they 
spake  with  tongues,  and  prophesied  (Acts  viii.;  x. ;  xix.)? 
Whatever  increment  of  faith  and  hope  and  love  and  joy  and 
peace  may  have  been  realized  by  those  who  received  this  divine 
chansDiy  a  child  can  see  that  the  transaction  was  of  a  miraculous 

20  Vol.  II. 


306  *  TJie  Sacramenfs. 

character,  clesigDed  to  attest  the  divine  legation  of  the  apostles, 
and  to  inaugurate  the  new  dispensation.  In  the  case  of  the  pen- 
tecostal  converts,  and  those  in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  thus  miraculously  i)oured  out  upon  them  without  the 
imposition  of  the  apostles'  hands,  though  it  was  in  attestation  of 
their  apostleship;  and  in  the  other  cases  the  imposition  of  hands 
took  place  merely  to  visibly  connect  the  apostles  wdtii  the  sub- 
jects of  the  miracle.  The  impartation  of  "  this  gift "  was  restricted 
to  the  apostles  for  the  reason  assigned,  and  ceased  forever  when 
they  passed  away.  Let  us  see  miraculous  gifts  imparted  by  a 
Eomish  bishop,  or  for  that  matter  any  other  gift,  and  we  will  be- 
lieve in  his  sacrament  of  confirmation;  till  then  we  shall  con- 
sider it  "a  corrupt  following  of  the  apostles:"  like  the  mimicry 
of  a  monarch  by  a  madman. 

There  are  no  other  texts  of  Scripture  adduced  in  favor  of  the 
sacrament  of  confirmation,  except  some  which  in  the  Yulgate 
speak  of  nnguentiim  in  capite:  the  ointment  poured,  on  the  head 
of  Aaron  which  ran  down  on  his  beard  (Ps.  cxxxiii.);  the  con- 
finnat,  iinxity  and  sifjnavit  of  2  Cor.  i.  21,  22:  "Now  he  wdiich 
stablisheth  us  with  you  in  Christ,  and  hath  anointed  us,  is  God; 
who  hath  also  sealed  us,  and  given  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit  in 
our  hearts."  So  confirinoMes  anhnas  discipidorum:  "confirming 
the  souls  of  the  disciples."  (Acts  xiv.  21.)  So  Judas  and  Sihas, 
being  prophets  (were  they  bishops  too?),  "  exhorted  the  brethren 
with  many  words,  and  confirmed  them  " — confinnaverimt.  (Acts 
XV.  32. )  Here  is  the  sacrament  of  confirmation  with  a  witness. 
AVe  should  like  to  know  what  bishop  confirmed  Aaron?  What 
bishop  confirmed,  anointed,  and  sealed  the  apostles  and  believ- 
ers spoken  of  in  2  Cor.  i.  ?  and  where  is  the  evidence  that  any 
thing  else  was  done  in  the  other  cases  mentioned  in  the  Acts 
but  what  any  minister  does  now,  as  Paul  and  Barnabas,  Judas 
and  Silas,  established  believers  in  the  faith  by  instruction  and 
exhortation?  "Ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye 
know  all  things.  .  .  .  The  anointing  which  ye  have  received 
of  him  abideth  in  you,  and  ye  need  not  that  any  man  teach  you; 
but  as  the  same  anointing  teacheth  you  of  all  things,  and  is 
truth,  and  is  no  lie,  ai^d  even  as  it  hath  taught  you,  ye  shall  abide 
in  him."  (1  John  ii.  20,  27.)  This  divine  unction,  forsooth,  is 
made  of  oil  and  balsam,  blessed  by  an  archbishop,  applied  to  the 
forehead  by  a  bishop  with  the  mark  of  the  cross,  imposition  of 


TJie  Five  Pseudo-sacra  me  uf.-^. 


307 


hands,  a  slap  on  tlie  face,  and  a  formula  of  incantation.  A\  hat 
conteniptible  twaddle  is  all  this!  One  could  not  be  justified  in 
having  any  patience  with  such  pitiful  travesty  of  the  Holy  Script- 
ures— substituting  a  puerile  ceremony  for  the  spiritual  anoint- 
ing from  the  Holy  One,  which  enlightens  and  saves  the  soul. 

It  is  due  to  Homan  controversialists  to  say  that  they  do  not 
lay  m  acli  stress  on  the  Scripture  testimony  feu*  the  sacrament  of 
confirmation;  they  depend  principally  upon  that  of  the  Fathers 
and  Councils  of  the  Church. 

Thus  the  Romish  Catechism  says: 

That  confirmation  lias  all  the  conditions  of  a  true  sacrament  has  been  at  ail 
times  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  Pope  Melchiades  and  many  other 
very  holy  and  ancient  pontiffs  expressly  declare. 

After  citing  a  number  of  names,  the  Catechism  impudently  says: 

Xot  only  was  it  instituted  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Ciirist,  but  as  St.  Fabian,  Bishop 
of  Rome,  testifies,  the  chrism  and  the  words  used  in  its  administration  were  also 
appointed  by  him:  a  fact  of  easy  proof  to  those  who  believe  confirmation  to  be  a 
sacrament,  for  all  the  sacred  mysteries  are  beyond  the  i)Ower  of  man,  and  could 
liave  been  instituted  by  God  alone. 

There  is  a  bald  and  bold  begging  of  the  question.  Only  be- 
lieve that  C^lirist  instituted  it,  and  you  can  not  doubt  it  to  be  a  sac- 
rament; only  believe  it  to  be  a  sacrament,  and  you  can  not  doubt 
that  Christ  instituted  it. 

Elliott  says: 

Here  the  soi)histry  of  this  authoritative  Catechism  is  manifest,  as  the  proof  tliat 
the  sacrament  was  instituted  by  Christ  is  drawn  from  the  credulity  of  the  ignorant! 
It  is  a  fact  of  easy  proof  to  those  who  believe  confirmation  to  be  a  sacrament.  Cer- 
tainly there  is  no  Scripture  warrant  to  show  that  it  is  one.  Hence  among  Roman- 
ists themselves  there  is  much  diversity  of  opinion  res])ecting  the  time  when  the 
institution  took  place,  some  referring  it  to  a  Council,  others  to  the  Last  Supper, 
others  to  the  time  between- the  resurrection  and  ascension.  (See  Dens,  de  Confir., 
No.  3,  Art.  v.,  p.  2-12.) 

"The  Catechism  further  says: 

A  mixture  of  oil  and  balsam  constitutes  the  matter  of  confirmation;  and  this 
mixture  of  different  elements  at  once  expresses  the  manifold  graces  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  the  excellence  of  this  sacrament.  That  such  is  its  matter  the  Churcli 
and  her  councils  have  uniformly  taught;  and  the  same  doctrine  has  been  handed 
down  to  us  by  St.  Denis,  and  by  many  other  Fathers  of  authority  too  great  to  be 
questioned,  particularly  by  Po[)e  Fabian,  who  testifies  that  the  apostles  received 
the  comi)osition  of  chrism  from  our  Lord,  and  transmitted  it  to  us. 

It  requires  no  small  patience  to  reply  to  suck  bold  statements 
and  evident  falsehoods.    As  Elliott  says: 


308 


TJie  Sacraments. 


The  letter  ascribed  to  Fabian  has  been  proved  to  be  a  forgery,  as  is  acknowl- 
edged by  Dens,  who  says:  "  Tiiis  Epistle  of  Fabian  is  now,  uniong  learned  men,  es- 
teemed as  supposititious  and  apochryphal,  as  also  the  other  decretal  letters  before 
Pope  Siricius."  Thus  the  principal  support  which  this  fabricated  statement  of 
the  authors  of  that  Catechism  rests  on  is  a  forged  letter  ascribed  falsely  to  this  Pope. 

And  what  are  the  Clementine  Canons  and  Constitutions  but 
forgeries?  And  yet  this  infallible  Catechism,  which  condenses 
and  popularizes  the  canons  and  decrees  of  the  infallible  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  published  by  the  authority  of  an  infallible  Pope, 
Pius  v.,  indorses  these  outrageous  forgeries,  and  cites  them  as 
the  principal  authority  for  this  hogus  sacrament. 

The  ancients  indeed  say  a  great  deal  about  confirmation,  and 
indeed  speak  of  it  as  a  sacrament,  but  then  they  use  this  word 
in  the  general,  loose  sense  already  explained.  They  considered 
this  rite  merely  complemental  of  baptism.  In  the  second  cent- 
ury they  introduced  a  great  many  ceremonies  to  make  baptism, 
as  they  thought,  more  impressive,  as  trine  immersion  in  a 
state  of  nudity;  the  use  of  salt,  honey,  oil,  etc.    Bingham  says: 

Immediately  after  the  persons  came  up  out  of  the  water,  if  the  bishop  was  pres- 
ent at  the  solemnity,  they  were  presented  to  him  in  order  to  receive  his  benedic- 
tion, Avhich  was  a  solemn  prayer  for  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  such  as 
were  baptized;  and  to  this  prayer  there  was  usually  joined  the  ceremony  of  a  sa- 
cred unction  and  imposition  of  hatids,  and  the  sign  of  the  cross;  whence  the  whole 
action  many  times  took  these  names:  xp'^^l^^,  the  unction;  ;t'e^/'jo^fcrm,  the  imposi- 
tion of  hands;  and  Ycppay'tc^  the  sign  or  seal  of  the  Lord,  which  are  names  mucli 
more  conmion  among  the  ancients  than  that  of  confirmation.  But  by  all  these 
names  they  understood  one  and  the  same  thing,  which  was  the  bishop's  prayer  for 
the  descent  of  the  Spirit  upon  persons  newly  baptized.  This  was  always  admin- 
istered together  with  ba[)tism  if  the  bishop,  who  was  the  ordinary  minister,  were, 
present  at  the  action.  But  if  he  was  absent,  as  it  usually  liappened  to  be  in 
churches  at  a  distance  from  the  mother  church,  or  when  persons  were  baptized  in 
haste  upon  a  sick-bed,  then  confirmation  was  deferred  till  the  bishop  could  have  a 
convenient  opportunity  to  visit  them. 

Bingham  adduces  a  good  many  patristic  testimonies  in  proo^ 
of  this  statement,  and  also  of  the  fact  that  this  confirmation  was 
given  to  infants  at  their  baptism,  as  complemental  of  that  sac- 
rament. If  the  bishop  were  not  present,  this  rite  w\as  postponed 
till  his  services  could  be  procured.  The  permanent  separation 
of  confirmation  from  baptism  is  generally  traced  to  the  thir- 
teenth century.  The  Greeks  still  connect  it  with  the  baptism  of 
both  adults  and  infants. 

Here,  then,  is  the  origin  of  this  wonderful  sacrament  of  con- 
firmation.   It  originated  in  a  superstitious  addition  to  the  sim- 


The  Five  Pseudo-sacraments. 


309 


pie  rite  of  baptism,  and  has  been  perpetuated  for  tlie  exaltation 
of  the  hierarchy  of  the  Church. 

Speaking  of  the  reception  of  heretics  and  schismatics  into  the 
Catholic  Church,  Bingham  says: 

But  yet  the  Church,  though  she  neither  repeated  the  outward  form  of  baptism, 
nor  always  the  unction  of  chrism,  especially  in  the  western  parts  where  St.  Aus- 
tin, Optatus,  Alciraus,  and  Avitus  lived,  yet  she  always  gave  a  new  imposition  of 
hands  with  prayer,  to  implore  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  tliem.  And 
though  this  was  separating  confirmation  from  baptism,  yet  it  was  only  in  an  ex- 
traordinary case,  when  the  Church  was  not  capacitated  to  do  otherwise.  In  otlier 
cases  she  always  joined  these  two  ceremonies  together,  as  well  in  infants  as  adult 
persons,  as  I  suppose  the  allegations  and  proofs  alleged  in  this  chapter,  do  abun- 
dantly show  to  any  candid  reader,  beyond  possibility  of  contradiction. 

Bingham  closes  the  first  chapter  of  his  Twelfth  Book  with 
this  sensible  paragraph: 

But  some  will  be  apt  to  object  that  if  this  were  the  case,  then  all  Churches  at 
present,  as  well  Protestant  as  Papist,  difier  from  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
Church  in  this  particular,  that  now  they  never  administer  confirmation  to  infants, 
but  only  to  adult  persons,  who  can  confirm  their  baptismal  vow  in  their  own  per- 
sons. And  this  difierence  is  readily  owned  as  to  practice.  But  then,  if  the  ques- 
tion be  about  right,  which  is  the  more  suitable  and  agreeable  practice?  and 
whether  we  ought  not  to  conform  in  every  circumstance  to  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  Church?  I  suppose  every  Churcli  in  this  case  is  best  judge  for  herself, 
what  is  most  for  the  edification  of  her  children.  And  as  no  Church  now  thinks 
herself  imder  any  obligation  to  give  the  eucharist  to  infants,  because  the  primitive 
Church  for  eight  hundred  years  did  so,  so  neither  does  any  Church  judge  herself 
bound  to  give  confirmation  to  infants  for  the  same  example;  though  some  learned 
persons  have  pleaded  for  both,  as  Bishop  Bedell  among  the  Protestants,  for  the 
communion  of  infants,  Matthew  Galen  among  the  Papists,  for  giving  them  con- 
firmation; while  others  judge  the  modern  practice  the  more  edifying  way,  and 
think  there  are  no  sufficient  arguments  to  engage  the  Church  to  make  an  altera- 
tion. 

The  Greek  Church  administers  the  unction  and  the  eucharist 
to  the  new^ly  baptized,  even  to  infants. 

The  Lutheran  and  Eeformed  Churches  practice  confirmation, 
but  do  not  consider  it  a  sacrament.  It  is  administered  by  the 
pastor  to  young  persons  when  they  are  of  a  suitable  age  to  rat- 
ify the  baptismal  vow.  Calvin  approved  it.  He  says  ("  Insti- 
tutes," iv.  19): 

I  sincerely  wish  that  we  retained  the  custom  which  was  practiced  amonc:  the 
ancients  before  this  abortive  image  of  a  sacrament  made  its  appearance.  For  it 
was  not  such  a  confirmation  as  the  Komanists  pretend,  which  cannot  be  mentioned 
without  injury  to  baptism ;  but  a  catechetical  exercise,  in  which  children  or  youths 
used  to  deliver  an  account  of  their  faith  in  the  presence  of  the  Church. 


310 


The  Sacraments. 


Calvin's  followers  on  the  Continent  have  carried  out  his  wishes. 

But  it  is  somewhat  singular  that  none  of  the  Calvinistic  Churches 
of  the  primitive  type,  or  the  Scotch  Presbyterians  and  their  off- 
shoots in  England,  Ireland,  and  America,  practice  confirmation; 
nor  do  any  of  the  dissenting  Churches  in  England,  or  their  off- 
shoots in  America  or  elsewhere— except  some  of  the  Baptists. 
And  it  is  rather  strange,  too,  that  none  of  the  Methodist  Con- 
nections pr:ictice  this  rite. 

AVhen  Mr.  AVesley  organized  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  America,  and  revised  the  English  Liturgy  for  its  use,  he 
omitted  the  order  of  confirmation.  He  liad  seen  it  so  grievous- 
ly abased  in  the  Church  of  England,  to  say  nothing  about  the 
Church  of  Rome,  that  we  suppose  he  thouglit  it  might  well  be 
spared,  especially  as  there  is  no  scriptural  authority  for  it,  and 
the  Methodist  Church  made  other  provisions  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  persons  into  full  communion. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  however,  in  view  of 
primitive  usages,  iillows  of  the  laying  on  of  hands,  with  a  ben- 
ediction, in  the  baptism  of  both  infants  and  adults,  and  we  never 
baptize  either  without  practicing  this  beautiful,  simple,  and  sug- 
gestive rite.  Our  Church  has.also  printed  a  form  for  the  "  Recep- 
tion and  Recognition  of  Church-members,"  which  is  in  substance 
a  confirmation  service.  No  harm,  perhaps,  would  result  from  giv- 
ing it  that  title  and  adding  to  the  service  the  imposition  of  hands. 

The  Church  of  England  and  its  offshoots  vary  in  their  notion 
of  confirmation:  some,  considering  it  a  sacrament  of  the  Church, 
if  not  "  of  the  gospel,"  would  be  very  willing  to  use  unction, 
etc.,  like  the  papists;  while  others  consider  it  merely  a  decent 
rite  for  the  ratification  of  the  baptismal  vow,  preparatory  to  the 
communion.  Many  who  are  of  this  opinion  would  be  pleased  to 
see  the  words  in  the  Collect  for  this  service  removed:  "upon 
whom,  after  the  example  of  thy  holy  apostles,"  as  they  seem  to 
imply  that  the  apostles  laid  on  hands  for  this  purpose;  but  we 
have  seen  that  the  passages  alluded  to  in  Acts  viii.;  Acts  xix. ; 
Heb.  vi.  refer  to  a  very  different  matter:  the  impartation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  through  the  laying  on  of  the  a])ostles'  hands,  where- 
by the  subjects  tliereof  were  enabled  to  perform  miracles  in  at- 
testation to  the  truth  of  Christianity — a  power,  we  presume, 
which  can  be  no  more  wielded  by  an  Anglican  than  by  a  Romish 
bishop. 


Tlie  Five  Pseudo-sacraments. 


311 


§  G.  Penance. 

The  second  spurious  sacrament  which  has  come  from  the  cor- 
rupt following  of  the  apostles  is  penance.  The  Eomanists  de- 
fine "  penance  as  a  sacrament  wherein  a  person  who  has  the  requi- 
site dispositions  receives  absolution  at  the  hands  of  the  priest,  of 
all  sins  committed  since  baptism." 

In  the  fourteenth  session  of  the  Council  of  Trent  are  these 
canons: 

Wlioever  shall  deny  that,  in  order  to  the  full  and  perfect  forgiveness  of  sins, 
three  acts  are  required  of  the  penitent,  constituting  as  it  were  the  matter  of  the 
sacrament  of  penance,  namely,  contrition,  confession,  and  satisfaction,  which  are 
called  the  three  parts  of  penance;  or  shall  affirm  that  there  are  only  two  parts  of 
penance,  namely,  terrors  wlierewith  the  conscience  is  smitten  by  the  sense  of  sin, 
and  faith,  produced  by  the  gospel,  or  by  absolution,  whereby  the  person  believes 
that  his  sins  are  forgiven  him  through  Ciirist:  let  him  be  accursed. 

AVhoever  shall  affirm  that  the  words  of  the  Lord  our  Saviour,  "Receive  ye 
the  Holy  Ghost:  whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them;  and 
whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained,"  are  not  to  be  understood  of  the 
})ower  of  forgiving  and  retaining  sins  in  the  sacrament  of  penance,  as  the  Catholic 
Church  has  always  from  the  very  first  understood  them,  but  shall  restrict  them  to 
the  authority  of  preaching  the  gospel,  in  opposition  to  the  institution  of  this  sac- 
rament: let  him  be  accursed. 

Whoever  shall  deny  that  sacramental  confession  was  instituted  by  divine  com- 
mand, or  that  it  is  necessary  to  salvation;  or  shall  affirm  that  the  practice  of  se- 
cretly confessing  to  the  priest  alone,  as  it  has  been  ever  observed  from  the  begin- 
ning by  the  Catholic  Church,  and  is  still  observed,  is  foreign  to  the  institution  and 
command  of  Christ,  and  is  a  human  invention:  let  him  be  accursed. 

Whoever  shall  affirm  that  the  [)riest's  sacramental  absolution  is  not  a  judicial 
act,  but  only  a  ministry  to  pronounce  and  declare  that  the  sins  of  the  party  con- 
fessing are  forgiven,  so  that  he  believes  himself  to  be  absolved,  even  though  the 
])riest  should  not  absolve  seriously  but  in  jest;  or  shall  affirm  that  the  confession 
of  the  penitent  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  obtain  absolution  from  the  priest:  let 
him  be  accursed. 

Whoever  shall  affirm  that  we  can  by  no  means  make  satisfaction  to  God  for 
our  sins,  through  the  merits  of  Christ,  as  far  as  the  temporal  penalty  is  concerned, 
cither  by  punishments  inflicted  on  us  by  him,  and  patiently  borne,  or  enjoined  by 
the  priest,  though  not  undertaken  of  our  own  accord,  such  as  fastings,  prayers, 
alms,  or  other  works  of  piety;  and  therefore  that  the  best  penance  is  nothing 
more  than  a  new  life:  let  him  be  accursed. 

The  Koman  Catechism  thus  descants  upon  the  matter  and  form 
of  this  sacrament: 

It  diflers  from  the  other  sacraments  in  this:  the  matter  of  the  other  sacraments 
is  some  production  of  nature  or  art;  but  the  acts  of  the  penitent,  contrition,  con- 
fession, and  satisfaction,  constitute,  as  has  been  defined  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  * 
the  matter  as  it  were  {quasi  materia)  of  the  sacrament  of  penance.  They  are  called 


312 


The  Sacraments. 


parts  of  penance,  because  required  in  the  penitent,  by  divine  institution,  for  tlie 
integrity  of  the  sacrament  and  the  full  and  entire  remission  of  sins.  "When  the 
holy  synod  says  that  they  are  "  the  matter  as  it  were,"  it  is  not  because  tJiey  are 
not  the  real  matter,  but  because  they  are  not,  like  water  in  baptism  and  chrism 
in  confirmation,  matter  that  may  be  applied  externally.  With  regard  to  the 
opinion  of  some,  who  hold  that  the  sins  themselves  constitute  the  matter  of  this 
sacrament,  if  well  weighed,  it  will  not  be  found  to  differ  from  what  has  been  al- 
ready laid  down:  we  say  that  wood  which  is  consumed  by  fire  is  the  matter  of 
fire,  and  sins  which  are  destroyed  by  penance  may  also  be  called  with  propriety 
the  matter  of  penance. 

The  form  also,  because  well  calculated  to  excite  tlie  faithful,  to  receive  with 
fervent  devotion  the  grace  of  this  sacrament,  the  pastor  will  not  omit  to  explain. 
The  words  that  compose  the  form  are:  "  I  absolve  thee,"  as  may  be  inferred 
not  only  from  these  words  of  the  Redeemer:  "Whatsoever  you  shall  bind  upon 
earth  shall  be  bound  also  in  lieaven;"  but  also  from  the  same  doctrine  of  Jesus 
Christ,  as  recorded  by  the  apostles.  That  this  is  the  perfect  form  of  the  sacra- 
ment of  penance,  the  very  nature  of  the  form  of  a  sacrament  proves.  The  form  of 
a  sacrament  signifies  what  the  sacrament  accomplishes:  these  words,  "I  absolve 
thee,"  signify  the  accomplishment  of  absolution  from  sin  tlirou.gh  the  instrumen- 
tality of  this  sacrament;  they  therefore  constitute  its  form.  Sins  are,  as  it  were, 
the  chains  by  which  the  soul  is  fettered,  and  from  the  bondage  of  which  it  is 
"  loosed  "  by  the  sacrament  of  penance.  This  form  is  not  less  true,  when  pro- 
nounced by  the  priest  over  him  who,  by  means  of  perfect  contrition,  has  already 
obtained  the  pardon  of  his  sins.  Perfect  contrition,  it  is  true,  reconciles  the  sin- 
ner to  God,  but  his  justification  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  perfect  contrition  alone, 
independently  of  the  desire  which  it  includes  of  receiving  the  sacrament  of  pen- 
ance. Many  prayers  accompany  the  form,  not  because  they  are  deemed  necessa- 
ry, but  in  order  to  remove  every  obstacle  whicli  the  unworthiness  of  the  penitent 
may  oppose  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacrament.  Let  then  the  sinner  pour  out  his 
lieart  in  fervent  thanks  to  God,  who  has  invested  the  ministers  of  his  Church  with 
such  ample  powers!  Unlike  the  authority  given  to  the  priests  of  the  Old  Law,  to 
declare  the  leper  cleansed  from  his  leprosy,  the  power  with  which  the  priests  of 
the  Xew  Law  are  invested  is  not  simply  to  declare  that  sins  are  forgiven,  but,  as 
the  ministers  of  God,  really  to  absolve  from  sin;  a  power  whicl^pod  himself,  the 
Author  and  Source  of  grace  and  justification,  exercises  through  their  ministry. 

Now  a  child  can  see  that  this  is  wo  sacrament.  It  was  not  in- 
stituted by  Christ  or  his  apostles:  it  has  neither  matter  nor  form 
of  divine  institution. 

The  quasi  materia  of  the  Council  of  Trent  is  no  matter  at  all: 
it  is  not  an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  an  inward  and  spiritual 
grace.  And  where  in  the  Scriptures  do  we  read  that  the  priest 
is  told  to  pronounce  the  awful  words,  Ecjo  te  ahsolvo  a  peccafis 
tins  in  nomine  Patris,  et  Filii,  et  Spirifus  Sandi,  "  I  absolve  thee 
from  thy  sins,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost V" 


The  Five  Pseudo-sacraments. 


313 


It  is  a  rare  thought  that  our  sins  maybe  the  matter  of  the  sac- 
rament.   They  are  a  fine  symbol  of  pardoning  grace. 

The  substitution  of  penance  for  repentance  is  a  crying  perver- 
sion, fraught  with  immense  mischief.  The  word  "  penance," 
used  in  the  Yulgate  for  repentance,  is  no  rendering  of  the  origi- 
nal Greek  !urrho'.a\  the  verb  from  which  it  comes  means  to  change 
the  mind  so  as  to  change  the  life.  Athanasius  says:  ''Mzzdvota  is 
so  called  because  it  transfers  the  mind  from  evil  to  good."  This 
change  is  of  course  always  connected  with  grief  for  the  evil 
done.    (2  Cor.  vii.  9-11.) 

Our  Catechism  accordingly  says:  "True  repentance  is  a  grace 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whereby  a  sinner  from  the  sense  of  his  sins, 
and  apprehension  of  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ,  doth  with  grief 
and  hatred  of  his  sin  turn  from  it  to  God,  with  full  purpose  of, 
and  endeavor  after,  future  obedience." 

Here  the  essence  of  repentance  is  represented  as  turning  away 
from  sin  in  order  to  lead  a  new  life.  This  is  accompanied  with 
grief  and  hatred  to  sin,  and  is  wrought  in  the  heart  by  the  grace 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  priest  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  busi- 
ness; his  interference  would  be  a  grand  impertinence.  Repent- 
ance prepares  for  the  exercise  of  faith  in  Christ,  whose  blood 
alone  cleansetli  from  all  sin. 

The  first  part  of  penance  is  coatrition,  which  the  Council  of 
Trent  not  badly  defines:  "A  sorrow  and  detestation  of  past  sins, 
with  a  purpose  of  sinning  no  more."  But  when  it  goes  on  to  say 
that  "  contrition  blots  out  sin,"  it  ascribes  to  the  act  of  the  sin- 
ner wliat  belongs  alone  to  the  Saviour.  And  when  it  says,  "  If 
the  sinner  have  recourse  to  the  tribunal  of  penance  with  a  sin- 
cere sorrow  for  his  sins,  and  a  firm  resolution  of  avoiding  them 
in  future,  although  he  bring  not  with  him  that  contrition  which 
may  be  sufficient  of  itself  to  obtain  the  pardon  of  sin,  his  sins 
are  forgiven  by  the  minister  of  religion,  through  the  power  of 
the  keys" — how unevangelical  are  such  statements!  Can  a  per- 
fect contrition  merit  forgiveness?  AVill  an  imperfect  contrition 
be  accepted  of  God  if  complemented  by  the  priest's  absolution? 
This  is  the  famous  doctrine  of  attrition.    Bishop  Hay  says: 

A  sorrow  for  sin  wliich  arises  from  fear  of  hell,  etc.,  is  called  imperfect  contri- 
tion and  attrition.  How  do  contrition  and  attrition  differ  in  tlieir  effects?  Per- 
fect contrition,  as  it  arises  from  a  perfect  love  of  God  for  himself  alone,  is  so  pleas- 
ing in  liis  sight,  that  the  moment  a  person  has  it,  God  is  reconciled  to  him  and 


314 


Tlie  Sacraments. 


forgives  his  sins.  Attrition,  on  the  other  hand,  in  no  case  attains  of  itself  the  re- 
aiission  of  sin,  but  only  disposes  the  soul  for  receiving  that  grace  by  means  of  the 
sacrament  of  penance. 

Now,  wliere  in  tlie  Scriptures  or  in  Christian  experience  did  he 
learn  that  jjerfect  contrition  springs  from  the  love  of  God  and 
instantly  jjrocures  pardon?  How  can  any  one  have  a  sense 
of  the  love  of  God  before  his  sins  are  forgiven?  And  what  sort 
of  a  nondescript  is  this  thing  called  attrition?  It  precisely  suits 
this  spurious  sacrament.  It  is  nowhere  recognized  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  God  indeed  does  not  despise  the  first  feeble  motion 
of  the  sinner's  heart  to  himself,  under  the  drawings  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  but  before  a  man  can  believe  with  the  heart  unto  right- 
eousness, he  must  seek  the  Lord  with  his  whole  heart,  which 
must  be  broken  for  sin  and  from  sin — "renouncing  every  sin." 

The  second  part  of  penance  is  confession. 

By  confession  is  here  meant  auricular  confession,  so  called 
because  it  is  whispered  in  the  ear  of  the  priest.  Every  Eoman 
Catholic  is  bound  to  tell  the  priest,  at  least  once  a  year,  every 
sin,  in  deed,  word,  or  thought  that  he  can  remember,  "includ- 
ing secret  offenses  and  those  which  have  been  committed  against 
the  last  two  precepts  of  the  decalogue,"  upon  pain  of  excom- 
munication and  damnation. 

The  conjiteo)',  or  form  of  confession,  is  as  follows: 

I  confess  to  Almighty  God,  to  blessed  ^Nlarv,  ever  a  virgin,  to  blessed  Michael 
the  Archangel,  to  blessed  John  the  Baptist,  to  the  holy  apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  to 
all  the  saints,  and  to  thee,  father,  tliat  I  have  sinned  exceedingly,  in  thought, 
word,  and  deed,  through  my  fault,  through  my  most  grievous  fault:  therefore,  I 
beseech  the  blessed  Mary,  ever  a  virgin,  the  l)lessed  Michael  the  Archangel,  the 
blessed  John  the  Baptist,  tlie  holy  apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  all  the  saints,  and 
thee,  father,  to  pray  to  the  Lord  our  God  for  nic. 

To  assist  the  memory  of  penitents  the  priest  is  instructed  to 
ask  them  questions  on  the  several  precepts  of  the  decalogue. 
The  questions  which  they  are  to  ask  of  females  at  their  confes- 
sional, as  set  down  in  their  great  text-books,  Dens,  Ligouri,  and 
others,  and  in  the  manuals  of  devotion,  such  as  the  "  Path  of 
Pnradise,"  which  directs  penitents  how  to  examine  themselves 
before  confession,  are  simply  abominable;  they  would  disgrace 
a  brothel.  After  such  licentious  language  the  penitent "  touches 
with  her  lips  either  the  ear  or  cheek  of  the  spiritual  father."  Is 
it  any  wonder  that  it  was  necessary  for  Pope  Paul  IV.  to  issue 
a  bull  against  solicitants,  priests  who  solicit  penitents  to  inde- 


The  Flee  PaeiidO'Sacrcunents. 


315 


cent  acts?  Or  that  Gregory  XY.  should  have  found  it  necessary 
to  issue  another  enjoinmg  upon  penitents  to  report  all  s(Aicitant^? 
Or  that  Benedict  XIY.  should  issue  another  bull  confirming  the 
former  bulls,  and  denouncing  penitents  who  solicit  confessors? 
At  one  time,  in  Seville,  the  number  of  females  who  reported 
solicitors  was  so  gre:it  that  twenty  notaries  and  as  many  inquis- 
itors were  appointed  to  note  down  their  reports,  but  they  were 
.  so  many  that  they  gave  up  the  matter,  and  it  ended  where  it 
began. 

It  need  scarcely  be  said  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  author- 
ity in  the  Holy  Scriptures  for  this  shockingly  demoralizing 
institution.  Yet  Eomisli  polemics  have  the  hardihood  to  say 
that  it  is  set  forth  in  the  word  of  God,  as  well  as  in  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers  and  the  decrees  of  Councils. 

AYe  onco  heard  Dr.  England,  Bishop  of  Charleston,  deliver  a 
discourse  on  Auricular  Confession  in  the  cathedral  in  Baltimore, 
He  said  when  in  Ireland  he  was  surprised  to  read  in  a  list  of 
dates  of  remarkable  events,  "Auricular  Confession  first  intro- 
duced into  the  Church,  A.  D.1215."  He  wondered  how  that  could 
be,  how  the  Church  could  have  submitted  to  such  an  innovation 
without  any  controversy.  He  denied  the  statement,  and  went 
back,  century  by  century,  citing  passages  from  Schoolmen  and 
Fathers,  which  speak  of  confession,  till  he  got  to  the  Apostles, 
when  he  raised  himself  to  his  full  magnificent  height,  and 
hurled  at  us  the  language  of  St.  James,  "  Confess  your  faults,'' 
and  that  of  St.  John,  "If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and 
just  to  forgive  us  our  sins."  (James  v.  IG;  1  John  i.  9.)  We 
listened  to  his  very  eloquent  discourse — a  masterpiece  of  soph- 
istry, as  well  as  of  oratory — with  amazement.  It  was  impossi- 
ble to  consider  him  honest  and  sincere.  He  must  have  known 
that  he  w^as  playing  off  the  most  barefaced  sophistry  upon  his 
credulous  and  admiring  hearers.  He  had  read  the  entire  pas- 
sage which  he  garbled  from  James:  "  Confess  your  faults  one  to 
another,  and  pray  one  for  another,  that  ye  may  be  healed:  the 
effectual  fervent  prayer  of  a  righteous  man  availeth  much."  He 
knew  that  there  was  no  auricular  confession  dreamed  of  by 
»  the  apostle;  that  there  was  no  priest  to  confess  to;  that  all  that 
*  is  meant  is  mutual  confessions  of  Christians  and  mutual  prayers. 
Each  confesses  to  the  other,  and  each  prays  for  the  other,  as  occa- 
sion may  require.    Ho  must  have  known  that  the  confession 


316 


TJte  Sacimnents. 


spoken  of  iii  1  John  i.  9  was  not  auricular  confession  to  a 
priest,  to  obtain  liis  forgiveness,  but  direct  confession  to  Ood, 
who  is  "  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins  and  to  cleanse  us 
from  all  unrighteousness."  But  the  ingenious  citation  of  pas- 
sages from  the  leathers  and  from  the  Scriptures,  which  speak  of 
confession,  without  distinguishing  between  them  and  those  of 
the  decrees  of  the  Councils  of  Lateran  and  Trent,  secured  his 
point.  His  ignorant  and  transported  hearers  never  thought  to 
inquire  into  the  difference  between  the  one  and  the  other. 

Thomas  Maguire,  the  great  champion  of  Eomanism  in  Ire- 
laud,  was  equal  to  Bishop  England  in  sophistry,  if  not  in 
ingenuity  and  eloquence,  and  perhaps  his  superior  in  hardihood. 
Only  think  of  a  man's  adducing  the  case  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira 
as  two  penitents,  forsooth,  making  "  sacramental "  confession  to 
Peter  in  "  the  tribunal  of  penance."  Their  Iijinrj  to  the  apostle  was 
singular  auricular  confession.  It  brought  them  a  unique  absolu- 
tion.  immediate  death  inflicted  by  the  hand  of  God  for  their  sins. 

Of  course  Acts  xix.  18,  19  is  adduced  as  another  proof  of 
auricular  confession :  "  And  many  that  believed  came,  and  con- 
fessed, and  showed  their  deeds.  Many  of  them  also  which  used 
curious  arts  brought  their  books  together,  and  burned  them 
before  all  men;  and  they  counted  the  price  of  them,  and  found 
it  fifty  thousand  pieces  of  silver."  Here  auricular  confession  is 
difficult  to  find.  The  whole  transaction  was  as  public  as  it 
could  be.  There  was  no  whispering  in  anybody's  ear;  there  was 
no  priest  there  to  receive  the  confession,  no  tribunal  of  penance, 
no  absolution,  for  all  took  place  after  the  pmifeuts  had  believed 
and  obtained  pardon.  They  brought  forth  fruits  meet  for  re- 
pentance, and  this  is  required  of  every  man. 

The  assertion  that  auricular  confession  was  enjoined  by  the 
Fathers,  as  a  part  of  the  sacrament  of  penance,  we  utterly 
deny.  They  recommended,  as  Ave  recommend,  that  penitents  who 
need  counsel  in  particular  cases  should  repair  to  a  minister  or 
any  other  judicious  person,  to  obtain  it,  and  of  course  that  they 
should  confess  their  faults  to  any  one  whom  they  may  have 
injured.  Bat  auricular  confession  was  never  made  the  law  of 
the  Church  till  the  Lateran  Council,  A.D.  1215. 

When  Bishop  England  asks  how  such  a  revolting  practice 
could  be  required  on  pain  of  excommunication,  without  excit- 
ing controversy,  we  answer,  it  was  not.    It  was  not  introduced 


TJie.  Fire  PseiidO'Sncmuients. 


317 


without  great  opposition,  aud  some  of  the  most  eminent  men  in 
the  Eomish  Communion  have  repudiated  it. 

Bingham,  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  Eighteenth  Book  of  his 
"Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church,"  demonstrates  the  truth  of 
this  statement.  He  shows  that  the  "fall  confession"  ( E^oiio/Myr^fr:^) 
of  the  ancients  was  very  different  from  auricular  confession, 
and  says  that  "  the  learned  Albaspinaeus  very  strenuously  sets 
himself  to  refute  tliis  error  in  the  writers  of  his  own  party,"  and 
gives  his  language,  which  is  full  and  explicit.  Bingham  also  cites 
numerous  passages  from  the  Fathers,  which  show  that  "no 
necessity  of  auricular  confession  was  ever  urged  by  the  ancient 
Church;"  and  concludes  his  demonstrative  argument  with  a 
summary  of  the  learned  Daille's  views  on  this  subject.* 

The  third  part  of  penance  is  satisfaction.  This  is  the  punish- 
ment prescribed  by  the  priest,  and  voluntarily  undergone  by  the 
penitent,  to  satisfy  divine  justice  for  sins  committed  after  bap- 
tism. This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  set  forth  by  the  Council  of  Trent, 
as  indispensable  to  pardon,  and  those  who  disallow^  it  are  anath- 
ematized by  the  Council.  The  punishments  usually  inflicted 
consist  of  "fasting,  prayers,  alms,  or  other  works  of  piety." 
These  other  works  consist  of  the  repetition  of  Ave  Marias  and 
other  formulas,  pilgrimages,  scourgings,  and  the  like.  The  Coun- 
cil says  that  those  punishments  procure,  through  the  merits  of 
Christ,  the  remission  of  the  temporal  punishment  due  to  sin; 
they  conform  us  to  Christ  in  his  sufferings,  and  powerfully  tead 
to  preserve  and  restrain  penitents  from  sin. 

Romish  writers  refer  to  Gen.  iii.;  Num.  xii.;  xx. ;  2  Sam.  xii.  in 
support  of  their  doctrine  of  satisfaction. 

This  dogma  has  been  refuted  in  the  exposition  of  the  Ninth, 
Tenth,  and  Eleventh  Articles:  "Of  the  Justification  of  Man;" 
"  Of  Good  Works,"  and  "  Of  AYorks  of  Supererogation,"  and  so 
need  not  be  dwelt  upon  in  this  place. 

The  passages  alluded  to  by  the  Tridentine  doctors  are  all  im- 
pertinent. The  punishments  inflicted  upon  Adam  and  Eve,  Mo- 
ses, Aaron,  and  Miriam,  and  David,  and  meekly  borne  by  them, 
were  not  designed  as  Cvompensations  for  their  sins,  but  rather 
were  penalties  imposed  upon  them  as  warnings  to  others,  and  as 
patent  evidences  of  the  evil  of  sin,  no  matter  by  ^vhom  committed. 

Popish  satisfaction  is  very  far  from  conforming  any  one  to 

"  See  Bingham's  "Antiquities,"  etc..  Vol.  II ,  pp.  IOCS,  10G9. 


318 


TJie  Sacraments, 


Christ  in  liis  sufferings;  it  rather  has  a  tendency  to  draw  the 
mind  away  from  the  latter  as  the  only  meritorioas  ground  of 
pardon  and  acceptance  with  God.  The  Scripture  does  not  rec- 
ognize the  popish  distinction  between  mortal  sins  and  venial 
fins;  the  former  deserving  eternal  punishment,  to  be  remitted 
alone  through  the  merits  of  Christ's  satisfaction,  and  the  latter 
deserving  temporal  punishment,  to  be  remitted  alone  through  the 
merit  of  penitential  satisfaction.  All  sins  deserve  eternal  death, 
and  all  are  atoned  for  by  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  which  is  re- 
alized by  justifying  faith,  not  by  works  or  sufferings  of  any  sort. 

If  none  of  the  duties  prescribed  by  God  can  satisfy  for  sin, 
what  shall  be  said  of  those  puerile  and  x^ainful  penances  which 
the  priests  prescribe,  and  to  which  their  penitents  submit?  the 
endless  repetition  of  prayers  to  God,  the  Yirgin,  and  the  saints; 
weary  pilgrimages;  j^ainful  scourgings;  hair-cloth  garments;  re- 
volting food;  protracted  fastings,  etc.,  etc.?  All  such  penances 
are  an  offense  to  both  God  and  man,  and  it  is  a  humiliation  to 
say  any  thing  concerning  them. 

Then  it  is  shocking  to  a  rectified  conscience  to  speak  of  prayer, 
fasting,  and  alms-giving— duties  prescribed  by  God — as  penanc- 
es or  punishments  for  sin.  What  degraded  conceptions  must  men 
have  of  God  and  his  requirements!  The  reasonable  service  wliicli 
he  demands,  though  involving  self-denial  and  bearing  the  cross, 
is  to  be  performed  by  us  not  as  a  penitentiary  or  purgatorial  pun- 
ishment to  satisfy  for  sin,  but  as  the  obedience  of  loyal  subjects 
and  loving  sons.  His  commandments  are  not  grievous.  The  grat- 
itude wdiich  springs  from  conscious  pardon  is  that  which  impels 
us  to  obedience.  The  good  works  which  he  requires  are  such  as 
are  performed  in  accordance  with  his  will,  by  the  aid  of  his  grace, 
and  to  his  glory;  and  these  comprehend  no  such  ascetic  services 
and  sufferings  as  enter  into  this  penitentiary  system,  "aft^r  the 
commandments  and  doctrines  of  men,  which  things  indeed  have 
a  show  of  wisdom  "--perhaps  in  this  cnse  Paul  would  rather  say 
of  folly — *'in  will-worship  and  humility,  and  neglecting  of  the 
body;  not  in  any  honor  to  the  satisfying  of  the  flesh."  (Col.  ii. 
22,  23.)  * 

The  Papists  pretend  that  their  doctrine  of  satisfaction  was  held 

The  rm:il  clause  the  Itcvised  Version  translates  as  follows:  "but  are  not  of  any 
value  ajrainst  tlie  indulgence  of  the  flesh."  This  is  more  perspicuous  and  forci- 
ble.-T.^ 


The  Floe  Pseudo^sacraments. 


819 


by  the  Fathers.  We  have  elsewhere  shown  that  the  penitentiary 
system  of  the  Fathers  was  very  dilfereut  from  the  sacramental 
penance  prescribed  by  Rome,  tliough  it  was  not  deriv  ed  from  the 
Scripture,  and  was  fraught  with  mischief.  And  here  we  enter 
our  protest  against  the  opening  paragraphs  of  the  Commina- 
tion  Service  of  the  Church  of  England,  which  reads  thus: 

Brethren,  in  tlie  primitive  Church  there  nvus  a  godly  discipline,  that  at  the  he- 
ginning  of  Lent  such  persons  ns  stood  convicted  of  notoriouei  sin  were  put  to 
open  penance  and  punishment  in  this  workl,  that  their  souls  might  he  saved  in 
the  day  of  the  Lord;  and  that  others,  admonished  by  their  example,  might  be  the 
more  afraid  to  offend. 

Instead  whereof  (^until  the  said  digclpline  may  be  restored  again,  whicli  is  nnich 
to  be  wished)  it  is  thought  good  that  at  this  lime  {in  the  presence  of  you  all)  should 
be  read  the  gen-eral  sentences  of  God's  cursing  against  impenitent  sinners,  gath- 
ered out  of  the  seven  and  twentieth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  and  otiier  places  of 
Scripture,  etc. 

No  wonder  that  scornful  Papists  and  "  irreverent  Dissenters  " 
laugh  at  this.  The  Anglican  Confession  states  that  the  Church 
has  power  to  ordain  rites  and  ceremonies.  Why  then  does  it  not 
restore  the  patristic  penitentiary  system,  ii  it  wishes  it  so  much? 
and  so  supersede  this  Ash-Wednesday  penance  prescribed  lov 
punishment  in  this  world  and  salvation  in  the  next.  How  differ- 
ent is  all  this  from  the  salutary  discipline  enjoined  in  the  New 
Testament! 

The  form  of  this  pseudo-sacrament  is  nothing  but  the  sentence 
of  absolution  pronounced  by  the  priest,  as  already  cited.  Tiie 
essential  part  of  the  form  is  Te  ahsoJro,  "I  absolve  thee."  The 
forms  Ahsolvat  te  Clirisius,  "May  Christ  absolve  thee!"  and  Ah- 
sol  vat  te  DeuSy  "  May  God  absolve  thee!  "  are  not  considered  valid 
by  most  Bomanists.  Dens  says:  "What  is  the  sense  of  the 
sacramental  form,  Ego  te  ahsolvoY  Answer.  The  sense  is  this: 
I  judicially  bestow  on  thee  the  grace  of  the  remission  of  all  thy 
sins,  as  far  as  is  in  the  force  of  my  ministry.  This  sense  of  the 
form,  *I  declare  thee  absolved'  cannot  be  admitted,  because  it  is 
condemned  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  Ses.  xiv.,  Can.  9." 

Palmer,  an  Anglican  divine,  in  his  Orlc/ines  Liturr)ic(i\  says: 

The  sacerdotal  benediction  of  penitents  was  in  the  earliest  times  conveyed  in 
the  form  of  a  prayer  to  God  for  their  absolution ;  but,  in  after  ages,  different  forms 
of  benediction  were  used,  both  in  the  East  and  West.  AVIth  regard  to  those  vari- 
eties of  form,  it  does  not  appear  that  they  W'ere  formerly  considered  of  any  impor- 
tance. A  benediction  seems  to  have  been  regarded  as  equally  valid  whether  it 
ivas  conveyed  in  the  form  of  a  petition  or  a  declaration,  whether  in  the  optative 


320 


The  Sacraments, 


or  indicative  mood,  whether  in  the  active  or  the  passive  voice,  whether  in  the  first 
second,  or  third  person.  It  is  true  that  a  direct  prayer  to  God  is  a  most  ancient 
lorm  of  blessing;  but  the  use  of  a  precatory  or  an  optative  form  by  no  means  war- 
rants  the  inference  that  the  person  who  uses  it  is  devoid  of  any  divinely  instituted 
authority  to  bless  and  absolve  in  the  congregation  of  God.  Neitlier  does  the  use 
of  a  direct  indicative  form  of  blessing  or  absolution  imply  any  thing  but  the  ex- 
ercise of  an  authority  which  God  has  given,  to  such  an  extent,  and  under  such 
limitations,  as  divine  revelation  has  declared. 

We  liave  already  shown  what  are  tliese  limitations  according 
to  Home.  The  penitent  looks  to  the  priests,  not  for  a  declaration 
of  pardon,  "but,  as  the  ministers  of  God,  really  to  absolve  from 
sin— a  power  which  God  himself,  the  author  and  source  of  grace 
and  justification,  exercises  through  their  ministry."  "  In  the 
minister  of  God,  w^ho  sits  in  the  tribunal  of  penance  as  his  legit- 
imate judge,  he  venerates  the  power  and  person  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ;  for  in  the  administration  of  this,  as  in  that  of  the 
other  sacraments,  the  priest  represents  the  character  and  dis- 
charges the  functions  of  Jesus  Christ."  So  says  the  Koman 
Catechism.  No  matter  how  vile  a  mortal  he  may  be,  if  he  sits 
in  the  tribunal  of  penance  his  sentence  of  absolution  frees  the 
penitent  from  his  sins.  This  is  a  daring  invasion  of  the  preroga- 
tive of  Him  who  alone  hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins.  And 
yet  for  impiety  and  blasphemy  like  this  Komanists  plead  Script- 
ure warrant. 

We  have  elsewhere  shown  that  Matt.  xvi.  19;  xviii.  18;  John 
XX.  21-23  are  utterly  irrelevant  to  the  case  in  hand.  They  refer 
to  the  prerogative  of  the  apostles  to  settle  authoritatively  what 
is  or  is  not  of  binding  obligation  in  the  Church,  the  terms  of 
pardon,  and  the  laws  of  discipline.  The  apostles  never  arro- 
gated the  power  to  forgive  the  sins  of  any  man,  except  in  the 
sense  of  the  remission  of  Church  censures,  as  in  2  Cor.  ii.  10: 
"  To  whom  ye  forgive  any  thing,  I  forgive  also."  This  was  the 
forgiveness  of  the  incestuous  Corinthian,  who  had  been  excom- 
municated from  the  Church,  but  in  repentance  was  restored  to 
its  fellowship.    {Of.  1  Cor.  v.  4,  5;  1  Tim.  i.  20.) 

If  the  terms  "binding  and  loosing"  are  used  of  Church  dis- 
cipline as  exercised  by  ordinary  ministers,  they  imply  nothing 
more  than  excommunication  on  conviction  of  guilt,  and  restora- 
tion on  the  exhibition  of  repentance. 

Bishop  Jewell  writes: 

We  say  that  Christ  hath  given  to  his  ministers  power  to  bind,  to  loose,  to  open, 


The  Five  Pseudo-sacraments. 


321 


to  shut,  and  that  the  office  of  loosing  consisteth  in  this:  either  (1)  that  the  min- 
ister by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  offereth  the  merits  of  Christ  and  full  pardon 
to  such  as  have  lowly,  contrite  hearts  and  do  unfeignedly  repent  themselves — pro- 
nouncing unto  the  same  a  sure  and  undoubted  forgiveness  of  their  sins,  and  hope 
of  everlasting  salvation:  or  else  (2)  that  the  same  minister,  when  any  have  of- 
fended their  brethren's  minds  with  some  great  .offense  or  notable  or  open  crime, 
whereby  they  have,  as  it  were,  banished  and  made  tliemselves  strangers  from  the 
common  fellowship,  and  from  the  body  of  Christ,  then,  after  perfect  amendment 
of  such  persons,  doth  reconcile  them  and  bring  them  liome  again  and  restore  them 
to  the  company  and  unity  of  the  faithful.  We  say  also  the  minister  doth  execute 
the  authority  of  binding  and  shutting:  (1)  as  often  as  he  shutteth  up  the  gate  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  against  unbelieving  and  stubborn  persons,  denouncing  unto 
them  God's  vengeance  and  everlasting  punishment;  or  else  (2)  when  he  doth  shut 
them  out  from  the  bosom  of  the  Church  by  open  excommunication.  Out  of  doubt, 
what  sentence  soever  the  minister  of  God  shall  give  in  this  sort,  God  himself  doth 
so  well  allow  it,  that  whatsoever  he  looseth  or  bindeth  here  on  earth,  God  him- 
self will  loose  and  bind  and  confirm  the  same  in  heaven. 

As  the  penitentiary  system  of  the  Nicene  Church  is  not 
scriptural  nor  expedient,  we  are  not  much  concerned  about  it  in 
this  discussion;  yet  it  may  be  well  to  state  what  Bingham  says 
upon  the  point.    Bingham  (Book  xix.,  chap,  i.)  shows  that 

All  Church  absolution  was  only  ministerial,  not  absolute.  It  consists  in  the  due 
exercise  and  application  of  those  means,  in  the  ordinary  use  of  which  God  is  pleased 
to  remit  sins.  These  mysteries  or  means  of  grace,  in  the  external  dispensation 
of  which  the  Church  is  concerned,  and  in  the  ordinary  use  of  which  remission  of 
sins  is  conveyed,  are  usually  by  the  ancients  reckoned  of  under  these  five  heads: 
1.  The  absolution  or  great  indulgence  of  baptism.  2.  The  absolution  of  the  eu- 
charist.  3.  The  absolution  of  the  word  and  doctrine.  4.  The  absolution  of  im- 
position of  hands  and  prayer.  5.  The  absolution  of  reconcilement  to  the  Church 
and  her  communion  by  a  relaxation  of  her  censures.  The  two  first  may  be  called 
sacramental  absolution;  the  third,  declaratory  absolution;  the  fourth,  precatory 
absolution;  the  fifth,  judicial  absolution;  and  all  of  them  authoritative,  so  far  as 
they  are  done  by  the  ministerial  authority  and  commission  which  Christ  has  given 
to  his  Church,  to  reconcile  men  to  God  by  the  exercise  of  such  acts  and  means  as 
conduce  to  that  end  in  a  subordinate  and  ministerial  way,  according  to  his  ap- 
pointment. 

Bingham  further  shows  that  while  "all  the  power  of  discipline 
was  primarily  lodged  in  the  hands  of  the  bishop,"  it  was  "in 
many  cases  committed  to  presbyters  and  to  deacons  also,"  as  he 
proves  by  the  language  of  the  Council  of  Elibius  and  of  Cyprian. 
He  says:  "In  case  of  extreme  necessity  some  canons  allowed  a 
layman  to  give  baptism  to  a  catechumen,  which  was  reputed  one 
sort  of  absolution,  rather  than  he  should  die  unbaptized."  Bing- 
ham also  points  out  (chap,  ii.)  that  absolution  was  always  given 
21  Vol.  II. 


322 


71  le  Sacraments. 


before  the  altar  or  tlie  reading  desk  in  a  supplicatory  form,  by 
imposition  of  hands  and  prayer: 

The  like  forms  of  absolution  by  prayer  are  still  in  use  in  the  Greek  Church; 
and  the  old  Ordo  Romanus  and  some  of  the  Roman  Ceremonials  and  Pontificals 
show  that  the  same  form  was  used  for  many  ages  in  the  Latin  Church  also.  If  it 
be  inquired  when  the  use  of  the  indicative  J'orm  of  absolution  first  began  to  be 
used  in  the  Church — that  is,  the  form,  "1  absolve  thee,"  instead  of  tlie  deprecatory 
form,  "  Christ  absolve  tiiee" — Morinus  has  fully  proved  that  there  was  no  use  of  it 
till  the  twelfth  or  thirteenth  century,  not  long  before  tlie  time  of  Thomas  Aqui- 
nas, who  was  one  of  the  first  that  wrote  in  defense  of  it, 

Bingham  afterward  proceeds  to  show  in  what  sense  the  indica- 
tive form  may  be  allowed.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  that 
matter,  seeing  that  there  are  no  priests  in  the  Christian  Church  to 
cleanse  spiritual  lepers,  or  to  pronounce  them  cleansed  (as  Eome 
pretends),  but  only  ministers  to  declare  the  conditions  of  pardon 
and  to  help  penitents  in  performing  those  conditions,  or  to  ex- 
communicate offenders  from  the  Church  on  conviction  of  their 
crimes,  and  restore  them  on  their  repentance. 

Bishop  Burnet  closes  an  elaborate,  but  not  altogether  satisfac- 
tory, discussion  of  this  subject  with  this  judicious  paragraph: 

The  pardon  that  we  give  in  the  name  of  God  is  only  declaratory  of  his  pardon, 
or  supplicatory  in  a  prayer  to  him  for  pardon.  In  this  we  have  the  whole  prac- 
tice of  the  Church  till  the  twelfth  century  universally  of  our  side.  All  the  fathers, 
all  the  ancient  liturgies,  all  that  have  writ  upon  the  offices,  and  the  first  school- 
men, are  so  express  in  this  matter  that  the  thing  in  fact  can  not  be  denied.  Mo- 
rinus  has  published  so  many  of  their  old  rituals  that  he  has  put  an  end  to  all 
doubting  about  it.  In  the  twelfth  century  some  few  began  to  use  the  words,  I ub- 
solve  thee:  yet,  to  soften  this  expression,  that  seemed  new  and  bold,  some  tempered 
it. with  these  words,  in  so  far  as  it  is  granted  to  my  frailly;  and  others  with  these 
words,  as  far  as  the  accusation  comes  from  thee,  and  as  the  pardon  is  in  me.  Yet  this 
form  was  but  little  practiced:  so  that  William,  Bishop  of  Paries  speaks  of  the  form 
of  absolution  as  given  only  in  a  prayer,  and  not  as  given  in  these  words,  I  absolve 
thee.  lie  lived  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century:  so  that  this  i)ractice, 
though  begun  in  other  places  before  this  time,  yet  was  not  known  long  after  in  so 
public  a  city  a«  Paris.  But  some  schoolmen  began  to  defend  it,  as  implying  only 
n  declaration  of  the  pardon  pronounced  by  the  priest;  and  this  having  an  air  of 
more  authority,  and  being  once  justified  by  learned  men,  did  so  universally  pre- 
vail thnt  in  little  more  than  sixtv  vears'  time  it  became  the  universal  practice  of 
the  whole  Latin  Church.  So  sure  a  thing  is  tradition,  and  so  impossible  to  be 
rhanired,  as  they  pretend,  when  within  the  compass  of  one  age,  the  new  form,  / 
absolve  the^.,  was  not  so  much  as  generally  known;  and  before  the  end  of  it  tlie  old 
form  of  doinir  it  in  a  prayer,  with  imposition  of  hands,  was  quite  worn  oui.  The 
idea  that  naturally  arises  out  of  these  words  is  that  the  priest  pardons  sins;  and 
since  that  is  subject  to  such  abuses,  and  has  let  in  so  much  corruplion  upon  that 
Church,  we  think  we  have  reason  not  only  to  deny  that  penance  is  a  sacrament, 


The  Five  Pseudo-sacraments,  323 


but  likewise  to  affirm  that  they  have  corrupted  this  great  and  important  doctrinci 
of  repentance,  in  all  the  parts  and  branches  ol"  it.  Nor  is  the  matter  mended  witii 
that  prayer  that  follows  the  absolution:  "The  passion  of  oin-  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  merits  of  the  blessed  Virgin  and  all  the  saints,  and  all  the  good  that  thou 
hast  done,  and  the  evil  that  thou  hast  sufiered,  be  to  tliee  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
the  increase  of  grace,  and  the  reward  of  eternal  life." 

§7.  Orders. 

The  next  of  "  the  commonlj'  called  sacraments,"  here  repudi- 
ated as  such,  is  called  "  Orders."  This  is  one  of  the  "  states  of  life 
allowed  in  the  Scriptures,  but  yet  have  not  the  like  nature  of 
Baptism  and  the  Lord's-supper,  because  they  have  not  any  vis- 
ible sign  or  ceremony  ordained  of  God." 

The  word  "  Orders,"  as  used  in  the  Eomish  Church,  denotes 
"  a  sacrament  by  which  a  special  grace  is  conferred  on  those  or- 
dained for  the  ministry."  Webster  says,  "sacred  ministry." 
But  the  word  sacred,  holy  (sacer),  is  used  by  Papists  to  distin- 
guish the  Major  Orders,  subdeacon,  deacon,  and  priest,  from 
the  Minor  Orders,  porter,  reader,  exorcist,  acolyte,  as  they  rec- 
ognize seven  orders  in  the  ministry.  Some  make  the  Episcopate 
a  distinct  order,  and  so  have  eight;  some  add  also  the  tonsure, 
and  so  have  nine.  Some  add  the  singers  also.  The  Greek 
Church  has  only  four  orders:  presbyter,  deacon,  subdeacon,  and 
reader.  ^ 

In  the  order  of  priesthood,  Eomanists  embrace  the  priest,  bish- 
op or  pontiff,  archbishop  or  metropolitan,  patriarch,  and  pope. 

As  there  are  matter  and  form,  administration  and  efficacy,  in 
each  of  the  seven  ordinations,  orders  are  manifestly  not  one  sac- 
rament, but  seven  sacraments,  which,  added  to  the  other  six, 
make  thirteen  sacraments  in  the  Homish  (J^hurch,  or  more  than 
thirteen,  according  to  the  number  of  orders  recognized. 

The  Boman  Catechism  says:  "Tonsure  is  a  sort  of  prepara- 
tion for  receiving  oi;ders.  In  tonsure  the  hair  of  the  head  is 
cut  in  form  of  a  crown,  and  should  be  worn  in  that  form,  en- 
larging the  crown  according  as  the  ecclesiastic  advances  in  or- 
ders." The  catechism  goes  on  to  say  that  Peter  introduced  it, 
and  that  it  represents  the  crown  of  thorns,  royal  dignity,  the 
perfection  of  the  ecclesiastical  state,  and  the  like  nonsense. 

The  porter  is  consecrated  by  the  bishop's  handing  him  the 
keys  of  the  church,  saying,  "  Conduct  yourself  as  having  to  ren- 


"  Burnet,  "  Exposition  of  the  XXXIX.  Articles,"  pp.  370,  371. 


324 


The  Sacraments. 


der  an  account  to  God  for  those  things  which  are  kept  under 
these  keys;  "  the  reader,  by  the  bishop's  handing  iiim  a  book  con- 
taining the  duties  of  his  position,  saying,  "  Eeceive  (this  book), 
and  be  you  a  rehearser  of  the  word  of  God,  destined,  if  you  ap- 
prove yourself  faithful  and  useful  in  the  discharge  of  your  office, 
to  have  a  part  with  those  who  from  the  beginning  have  acquitted 
themselves  well  in  the  ministry  of  the  divine  word."  The  bishop, 
when  initiating  the  exorcist,  hands  him  a  book  containing  the 
exorcisms,  saying,  "Take  this  and  commit  it  to  memory,  and 
have  power  to  impose  hands  on  persons  possessed,  be  they  bap- 
tized or  catechumens."  At  the  "  ordination  "  of  the  acolyte,  the 
bishop  places  in  his  hands  a  light,  saying,  "Eeceive  this  wax- 
light,  and  know  that  henceforth  you  are  devoted  to  light  the 
church  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  He  also  hands  him  empty 
cruets,  saying,  "  Eeceive  these  cruets,  which  are  to  supply  wine 
and  water  for  the  eucharist  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord." 

In  the  consecration  of  subdeacons,  the  bishop  first  admon- 
ishes each  of  the  candidates  that  by  his  ordination  he  assumes 
the  solemn  obligation  of  perpetual  continence,  then  gives  him  a 
chalice  and  a  consecrated  patena,  and  the  archdeacon  gives  him 
cruets  filled  with  wine  and  water,  and  a  basin  and  towel,  when 
the  bishop  says:  "See  what  ministry  is  confided  to  you;  I  ad- 
monish you,  therefore,  to  so  comport  yourself  as  to  be  pleasing 
in  the  sight  of  God."  He  puts  on  him  his  vestments,  saying 
certain  words  and  making  use  of  certain  ceremonies,  and  then 
gives  him  the  Book  of  the  Epistles,  saying,  "Eeceive  the  Book 
of  the  Epistles,  and  have  power  to  read  them  in  the  Church  of 
God,  both  for  the  living  and  the  dead." 

In  ordaining  a  deacon  the  bishop  puts  on  him  a  stole,  lays 
hands  on  him,  gives  him  the  Book  of  the  Gospels,  saying,  "  Ee- 
ceive power  to  read  the  Gospel  in  the  Church  of  God,  as  well  for 
the  living  as  for  the  dead,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

The  Catechism  says: 

The  third  and  liiglie.st  degree  of  all  holy  orders  is  the  priesthood.  The  bishop, 
and  after  liim  tlie  priests  who  may  he  present,  impose  hands  on  the  candidate  for 
priesthood;  then,  placing  a  stole  on  his  shoulders,  he  anoints  it  in  form  of  across. 
He  next  anoints  his  hands  with  sacred  oil,  reaches  him  a  chalice  containing  wine, 
and  a  patena  with  bread,  saying,  "  Receive  power  to  ofier  sacrifice  to  God,  and  to 
celebrate  mass  as  well  for  the  living  as  the  dead." 

By  these  words  and  ceremonies  he  is  constituted  an  interpreter 


9 


The  Five  Pseudo-sacraments. 


325 


and  mediator  between  God  and  man,  this  being  the  principal 
function  of  the  priesthood.  Finally,  placing  his  hands  on  the 
head  of  the  persons  to  be  ordained,  the  bishop  says: 

"Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost;  whose  sias  you  shall  forgive,  they  are  forgiven 
tliem;  and  whose  sins  you  shall  retain,  they  are  retained;"  tiius  investing  hiai 
with  that  divine  power  of  forgiving  and  retaining  sins,  which  was  conlerred  by 
our  Lord  on  his  disciples.  These  are  the  principal  and  peculiar  functions  of  the 
priesthood. 

If  the  foregoing  are  not  seven  sacraments  they  are  certainly 
not  one  sacrament^  since  there  are  matter,  form,  administrator,  and 
assumed  efficacy  in  each. 

The  Catechism  furthermore  says:  "The  sacrament  of  orders 
is  not  to  be  conferred  on  very  young  or  on  insane  persons, 
because  they  do  not  enjoy  the  use  of  reason;  if  administered, 
however,  it  no  doubt  impresses  a  character." 

Aquinas  says: 

In  consequence  of  the  death  of  Jesus  the  sacraments  instituted  in  the  Xew  Tes- 
tament have  obtained  what  is  called  virtus  inslmmentalis,  or  effectiva,  which  those 
of  tlie  Old  Testament  did  not  possess.  Therefore,  by  partaking  of  the  sacraments, 
man  acquires  a  certain  character  which,  in  the  case  of  some  sacraments,  such  as 
baptism,  confirmation,  and  tlie  ordination  of  priests,  is  cluiracter  indelibilis,  and 
consequently  renders  impossible  the  repetition  of  such  sacraments. 

The  Council  of  Florence  says: 

Among  the  sacraments  there  are  three,  baptism,  confirmation,  and  orders, 
which  imprint  in  the  soul  a  character,  that  is,  a  certain  spiritual  and  indelible 
sign,  distinguishing  it  from  others.  Hence,  in  the  same  person  these  sacraments 
are  not  repeated.  The  other  four  do  not  imprint  a  character,  and  admit  of  repeti- 
tion. 

The  Council  of  Trent  says: 

Whoever  shall  affirm  that  a  character,  that  is,  a  certain  spiritual  and  indeli- 
ble mark;  is  not  impressed  on  the  soul  by  the  three  sacraments  of  baptism,  con- 
firmation, and  orders,  for  which  reason  they  can  not  be  repeated:  let  him  be 
accursed. 

In  what  this  my sterions  character  consists  we  can  not  imap^ine, 
and  Romanists  are  not  agreed  among  themselves,  as  they  have  a 
great  diversity  of  opinions  concerning  it.  Thomas  Aquinas 
restricts  it  in  orders  to  "the  ordination  of  priests."  Hence, 
once  a  priest,  always  a  priest.  He  may  be  stripped  of  his  func- 
tion, but  not  of  his  character.  Bailly,  a  celebrated  Papist 
polemic,  says: 

It  is  certain  that  the  character  impressed  in  ordination  remains  in  the  wicked 
— simoniacs,  degraded  persons,  also  in  those  who,  after  ordination,  fall  into  here- 


326 


Tlie  Sacraments. 


sy  or  schism,  because  character  is  indelible.  Ordinations  conferred  according  to 
the  rite  instituted  by  Christ  are  valid,  though  performed  by  bishops  who  are  her- 
etics, schismatics,  degraded,  deposed,  excommunicated,  intruded,  invaders,  simoni- 
acs,  in  one  word,  by  any  wicked  person. 

This  indelible  cliaracter,  according  to  Eomanis^s  is  something 
different  from  sanctifying  grace  and  sacramental  grace,  which 
they  say  are  both  conferred  in  ordination.  Thus  the  Catechism 
says:  "The  sacrament  of  orders  imparts  grace  to  him  who 
receives  it  with  proper  dispositions,  which  qualifies  and  enables 
him  to  discharge  with  fidelity  the  duties  which  it  imposes." 
The  Council  of  Trent  says,  "  If  any  one  shall  say  that  by  sacred 
ordination  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  given,  and  that  the  bishop 
says  in  vain,  '  Keceive  the  Holy  Ghost,'  let  him  be  anathema." 

But  it  is  useless  to  dwell  longer  upon  this  pseudo-sacrament, 
in  order  to  show  what  is  claimed  for  it  by  the  Church  of  Eome. 

In  opposition  to  this  boasted  sacrament  of  orders,  we  allege 
as  follows: 

1.  The  Scriptures  are  utterly  silent  as  to  any  of  these  orders, 
except  those  of  deacon  and  presbyter,  or  bishop,  that  is,  pastor 
and  teacher. 

In  Acts  vi.  we  read  of  seven  men  of  honest  report,  full  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  w^ho  were  chosen  by  the  multitude  of 
the  disciples  in  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  to  dispense  the  chari- 
ties of  the  Church,  and  because  the  word  oiavAv^ia  (ministration) 
is  used,  they  are  commonly  called  "deacons,"  They  were  set 
apart  to  their  work  by  prayer  and  the  laying  on  of  the  apostles' 
hands.  In  1  Tim.  iii.  we  find  a  description  of  certain  officers 
called  "  deacons,"  who  seem  to  have  other  duties  assigned  them 
besides  the  serving  of  tables.  So  in  Phil.  i.  1,  we  read  of  the 
"bishops  and  deacons,"  and  that  is  all  that  is  said  about  them 
in  the  Scriptures.  They  are  not  elsewhere  mentioned  in  the 
sacred  volume. 

In  Acts  xi.  30;  xiv.  23;  xv.  4,  6,  23;  xvi.  4;  xx.  17;  1  Tim.  v.  1, 
17,  19;  Titus  i.  5;  James  v.  14;  1  Pet.  v.  1  we  read  of  certain 
officers  of  the  Church  called  "elders,"  presbyters,  a  title  of 
dijznity,  because  they  were  usually  men  of  age  and  honorable 
position.  When  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  on  their  great  tour 
"they  ordained  them  elders  in  every  Church"  (Acts  xiv,  23); 
but  with  what  ceremony  is  not  stated;  the  ytiporoW^nayzz-,  means 
simply  to  appoint  or  constitute.    Some,  in  view  of  the  etymol- 


TJie  Five  Pseudo-sacraments. 


327 


ogy  of  the  word,  think  it  was  done  by  suffrage,  stretching  out 
the  hands  of  the  people,  not  the  Laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
apostles;  but  whatever  was  done  was  done  by  the  apostles.  For 
the  word,  compare  Acts  x.  41:  "Chosen  before  of  God,"  where 
there  was  neither  stretching  out  the  hands  nor  laying  them  on. 

Titus,  an  evangelist,  w^as  instructed  by  Paul  to  "  ordain  elders 
in  every  city"  in  Crete;  and  these  elders  are  called  bishops, 
like  those  in  Epliesus,  Acts  xx.  17,  28,  where  the  word  rendered 
"overseers"  is  bishops.  Timothy,  another  evangelist,  received 
similar  instructions  to  ordain  bishops  in  Ephesus.  From  1  Tim. 
V.  22  it  is  inferred  that  he  did  it  with  the  imposition  of  liandsj 
though  that  is  a  disputed  point. 

It  is  observable  that  apostles  som'etimes  called  tliemselves 
"elders,"  but  never  "bishops,"  the  latter  title  being  restricted 
to  the  pastorate,  which  was  incompatible  with  the  apostolate. 
(1  Pet.  V.  1;  2  John  1;  3  John  1.) 

In  Rom.  xii.  G-8  there  is  an  enumeration  of  offices,  prophecy, 
ministry,  teaching,  exhorting,  giving,  ruling,  showing  mercy. 
In  1  Cor.  xii.  28-30  we  read  that "  God  hath  set  some  in  the  Church, 
first  apostles,  secondly  prophets,  thirdly  teachers,  after  that 
miracles,  then  gifts  of  healings,  helps,  government,  diversities 
of  tongues.  Are  all  apostles?  Are  all  prophets?  Are  all  teach- 
ers? Are  all  w^orkers  of  miracles?  Have  all  the  gifts  of  heal- 
ing? Do  all  speak  with  tongues?  Do  all  interpret?"  We 
presume  very  fev/  in  orders  in  the  Eomisli  Church  do  any  of 
these  things  except  teach inrj,  and  few  of  them  do  much  of  that. 

In  Eph.  iv.  11,  12  we  read:  "He  gave  some,  apostles;  and 
some,  prophets;  and  some,  evangelists;  and  some,  pastors  and 
teachers;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ."  All  the 
officers  here  mentioned  are  extraordinary  and  temporary,  except 
pastors  and  teachers-,  who  are  the  elders  of  the  Church,  the 
bishops,  or  shepherds,  of  the  flock.  "  The  angel  of  the  Church," 
mentioned  Pev.  i.-iii.  was  probably  the  president  of  the  "pres- 
bytery," as  the  body  of  elders  in  a  city  is  called  in  1  Tim.  iv.  14, 
where  Paul  says  to  Timothy,  who  was  an  "evangelist,"  "Neg- 
lect not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  proph- 
ecy, with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery."  In  2 
Tim.  i.  6,  Paul  says  to  him :  "  I  put  thee  in  remembrance,  that 
thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God,  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting  on 


328 


Tlie  Sacraments. 


of  my  hands."  It  is  likely  the  elders  of  some  Church  joined 
with  the  apostle  in  the  imposition  of  hands  when  Timothy  was 
set  apart  to  do  the  work  of  an  evangelist.  So  "  certain  prophets 
and  teachers,"  in  the  Church  at  Antioch  laid  their  hands  on 
Paul  and  Barnabas  when  they  were  sent  forth  by  the  Spirit  on 
their  great  missionary  tour,  though  both  of  them  had  been  long 
in  the  ministry,  and  one  of  them  was  an  apostle. 

There  are  no  other  "orders  "  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament, 
where  we  read  of  no  tonsure,  porter,  reader,  exorcist,  acolyte,  or 
subdeacon.  Several  of  these  functionaries  may  do  w^ell  enough: 
some  must  open  the  church,  light,  warm,  and  clean  it,  take  care 
of  the  sacred  vessels,  assist  in  divine  worship,  etc.;  but  it  is  as 
ridiculous  to  speak  of  them  as  in  sacramental  orders  as  it  would 
be  for  us  to  speak  thus  of  our  Sunday-school  teachers,  class-lead- 
ers, exhorters,  licensed  preachers,  stewards,  trustees,  and  sextons. 

2.  We  read  nothing  in  the  Scriptures  of  ordination  by  a  bish- 
op, but  only  by  apostles,  evangelists,  and  presbyters.  Apos- 
tles and  evangelists  were  extraordinary,  temporary  officers. 
Presbyters  are  the  stated,  ordinary  rulers  and  pasters  of  the 
Church.  (1  Tim.  v.  17;  Heb.  xiii.  7,  17, 24.)  They  are  nowhere 
commanded  to  ordain  men  to  the  ministry;  but,  as  represent- 
atives of  the  Church  and  ministers  of  Christ,  it  seems 
proper  that  they  should  do  so.  If  they  see  proper  to  appoint  one 
or  more  of  their  number  to  do  this  work  for  them,  there  is 
certainly  nothing  in  the  Scripture  or  in  the  nature  of  the  case 
forbidding  it.  If  they  choose  to  call  the  presiding  elder,  to 
whom  this  and  other  functions  are  committed,  the  bishop,  by  em- 
inence, "  the  angel  of  the  Church,"  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
objection  to  it.  That  this  took  place  in  the  post-apostolic 
Church,  is  a  matter  of  history.  But  to  argue  from  this,  that 
none  but  a  bishop  has  the  pow'er  to  confer  orders  is  simply  pre- 
posterous. 

3.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the  Scriptures  about  the  matter 
and  form  of  any  of  these  seven  sacraments  of  ordination — not  a 
word,  except  of  the  imposition  of  hands.  Nor  is  this  mentioned 
in  the  case  of  the  ordination  of  Matthias  and  Paul,  who  filled 
the  places  of  Judas  and  James  in  the  sacred  college.  Imposi- 
tion of  hands  was  common  among  the  Jews  and  primitive 
Christians,  being  a  simple  and  significant  rite,  designating  the 
person  upon  whom  a  blessing  is  pronounced,  a  miracle  per- 


Tlie  Five  Pseudo-sacraments, 


329 


formed,  or  an  office  conferred.  There  was  no  virtue  in  it  wliat- 
ever.  It  is  nowhere  prescribed  as  necessary  in  ordination, 
though  it  sometimes  took  place  as  we  have  seen.  As  to  the 
presentation  of  sacred  vessels,  books,  tapers,  and  the  like,  with 
the  pronunciation  of  certain  formulas,  there  is  not  a  syllable  about 
all  this  in  the  New  Testament  or  the  early  Fathers;  and  yet, 
without  these  things,  as  the  form  and  matter  of  the  sacrament  of 
orders,  Romanists  hold  there  is  no  such  sacrament;  but  their  ar- 
gument proves  too  much :  no  sacrament  of  this  character  is  de- 
scribed in  the  New  Testament. 

4.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the  Scriptures  about  the  sacrament- 
al grace  or  the  indelibility  of  orders.  The  passages  cited  (1 
Tim.  iv.  14;  2  Tim.  i.  6)  obviously  refer  to  a  supernatural,  mi- 
raculous gift,  charism,  imparted  to  Timothy,  to  qualify  him  for  the 
extraordinary  work  of  an  evangelist.  It  was  imparted  by  the 
laying  on  of  the  apostle's  hands  (just  as  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
given  for  other  though  similar  ends  to  the  believers  mentioned 
Acts  viii.;  xix.),  with  the  concurrence  of  the  prophets  and  other 
members  of  the  presbytery.  A  fire  was  then  enkindled  in  his 
breast,  and  the  apostle  exhorted  him  to  stir  it  up,  to  keep  it  burn- 
ing by  constant  exercise,  and  to  quench  not  the  Spirit  imparted 
to  him  to  qualify  him  for  his  evangelical  office.  But  what 
has  this  to  do  with  sacramental  grace?  "Where  was  ever  a 
Romish  priest  thus  endowed  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
j)relate  or  pope?  What  grace  of  any  sort  was  ever  conveyed 
by  the  mummeries  of  a  Romish  ordination?  And  where  does  the 
Scripture  speak  of  an  indelible  character  imprinted  in  or- 
dination? Judas  was  an  apostle,  but  he  became  an  apostate. 
AYas  the  apostolic  character  indelible  in  him?  Peter  an- 
swers when  he  prayed  the  Lord  to  show  whom  he  had  chosen 
to  "  take  part  of  this  ministry  and  apostleship,  from  which  Ju- 
das by  transgression  fell."  When  he  fell  from  grace  he  fell 
from  his  apostleship.  If  any  sacramental  character  had  been 
impressed  upon  him,  it  was  forever  erased.  He  fell,  and  went 
to  his  own  place,  and  we  know  what  place  is  proper  to  apostates, 
■whether  priests  or  laity.    (Acts  i.) 

5.  True  ministers  are  holy  men  called  of  God,  recognized  by  the 
Church,  set  apart  by  some  decent,  edifying  ceremony,  that  they 
might  be  known  of  all  men  to  be  clothed  with  the  sacred  func- 
tions. 


330 


The  Sacraments. 


As  iDiiiisters  rej)reseiit  Christ  and  the  Church,  their  acts  are 
valid,  though  they  themselves  may  be  hypocrites.  They  may 
be  useful,  but  it  can  hardly  be  thought  that  they  can  be  as  use- 
ful as  if  they  '\v3re  what  they  profess  to  be.  When  proved  to' 
be  wicked  men,  they  should  be  deposed  without  delay;  they 
are  no  more  ministers  of  Christ  and  his  Church  than  if  they 
never  had  been  ordained. 

Any  method  not  superstitious,  or  otherwise  unscriptural,  may 
be  adopted  to  constitute  ministers. 

It  may  be  done  by  immediate  ordination  over  a  i)articular 
Church. 

It  may  be  done  by  a  more  gradual  process,  by  licensing  them 
to  exhort,  to  preach,  to  officiate  as  deacons,  and  then  as  presby- 
ters. 

It  may  be  done  by  a  general  consecration  to  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  either  by  a  vote  of  the  Church,  or  by  the  laying  on 
of 'the  hands  of  the  presbytery,  or  by  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  one  set  apart  for  the  purpose,  called  "  bishop  "  by  dis- 
tinction. 

Any  of  these  methods*  may  be  lawfully  adopted,  and  they  are 
all  in  use,  as  there  is  no  law  or  well-defined  precedent  in  the 
premises  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

The  Nicene  Church  had  many  ecclesiastical  offices,  numerous 
rites  and  ceremonies;  but  it  knew  nothing  of  the  "sacrament of 
orders,"  though  gradually  hierarchical  views  developed  to  an 
unscriptural  extent,  and  prepared  the  way  for  the  elevation  of 
ordors  into  the  dignity  of  a  sacrament. 

Bingham,  in  the  Second  Book  of  "Christian  Antiquities," 
treats  at  large  of  the  several  superior  orders  of  the  clergy,  in 
the  primitive  Church ;  and  in  the  Third  Book,  "  of  the  inferior 
orders."  All  the  latter  he  shows  to  have  been  not  of  apostolical, 
but  of  ecclesiastical  institution,  against  Baronius  and  the  Coun- 
cil OL  Trent.  He  shows  that  there  was  no  certain  number  of 
them,  but  specifies  subdeacons,  acolythists,  exorcists,  lectors, 
ostiarii,  psalmist?©,  copeatse,  parebolani,  catechists,  defensores, 
oeconomi,  and  other  inferior  officers.  In  the  Fifth  Book  he 
speaks  "of  the  elections  and  ordinations  of  the  clergy,  and  the 
particular  qualifications  of  such  as  w^ere  to  be  ordained."  But 
with  these  matters  we  are  not  concerned.  The  rules  which  they 
adopted  may  be  studied  perhaps  with  some  profit,  but  many  of 


Tlic  Five  Pseudo-sacramoits. 


331 


them  are  inapplicable  to  our  case,  and  Done  of  tliem  are  of  any 
binding  force. 

[In  connection  with  the  foregoing  anti-fanatical,  common- 
sense,  and  scriptural  \iews  of  Dr.  Summers  may  be  considered 
the  position  taken  and  defended  by  Professor  Raymond,  of  the 
Garrett  Biblical  Institute,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church: 

God  lias  signified  in  liis  word  that  it  is  his  will  that  certain  men,  whom  he  culls, 
sliall  devote  themselves  to  the  service  of  his  Church;  and  that  the  Church  shall 
recognize  persons  giving  evidence  of  such  a  divine  call  as  its  ministers;  shall  ap- 
point them  to  the  ministry,  authorize  tiiem  to  discharge  the  functions  of  the  min- 
isterial office,  shall  co-operate  with  them  in  tiieir  work,  and  contribute  to  their 
temporal  support.  But  as  to  the  mode  of  their  election,  the  forms  and  ceremonies 
of  their  ordination,  the  persons  or  officers  by  whom  they  shall  be  ordained,  the 
division  of  their  labors,  and  the  ranks,  classes,  or  orders  into  which  they  them- 
selves shall  be  divided,  the  New  Testament  gives  no  distinct  directions,  and  there- 
fore as  to  these  things  there  are  no  divine  requirements;  but  the  Church  is  left  to 
determine  them  at  its  discretion:  jirovided,  always,  that  in  its  action  it  does  not 
contravene  any  plainly  revealed  principle  of  Church  government.  Now,  if  to  one 
holding  this  theory  the  question.  How  many  orders  are  there  in  the  Christian 
ministry?  be  asked,  and  the  term  orders  be  accepted  in  the  sense  of  High-church- 
ism,  the  only  answer  he  can  give,  consistent  with  his  own  theory,  is  that  there  are 
no  orders  at  all;  there  is  no  divine  requirement  for  any  classification  whatever; 
all  Christian  ministers,  so  far  as  divine  right  is  concerned,  are  co-ordinate.  ,  .  . 
But  it  will  be  said  that  the  word  orders,  as  used  by  Protestants,  generally  has  an- 
other signification-;  namely,  ii  distinction  of  classes  in  the  ministry  by  the  conven- 
tional decisions  of  the  Church.  In  this  sense,  the  only  answer  most  Protestants 
can  give,  consistent  with  their  theory,  to  the  question,  How  many  orders  are  there? 
is,  just  as  many  as  the  Church  pleases  to  make.  .  .  .  It  is  not  very  uncom- 
mon, in  the  parlance  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  say  that  there  are 
two  orders  in.  the  ministry.  Let  us  examine  this  a  little  and  see  how  it  looks. 
AVe  have  nominally  three  classes — bishops,  elders,  and  deacons.  In  theory  it  is 
affirmed  that  bishops  and  elders  are  of  the  same  order;  so  that  we  have  two  or- 
ders— presbyters  and  deacons.  Now  we  do  not  claim  that  the  two  are  by  divine 
right,  for  we  have  always  recognized  the  English  "Wesleyan  Church  as  a  true  and 
valid  Christian  and  IMethodist  Church,  and  they  have  no  deacons  and  but  one  or- 
dination for  their  elders.*  The  distinction  then  is  with  us,  by  conventional  de- 
cision. On  what  is  this  distinction  founded?  Our  bishops  are  diflferentiated  from 
our  elders  by  at  least  three  very  important  prerogatives,  and  our  elders  diflTer  from 
our  deacons  by  only  one  prerogative,  and  that  a  very  unimportant  one.  Necessi- 
ties excepted,  the  right  of  ordination,  the  power  to  station  traveling  ministers,  and 
the  presidency  of  the  General  Conference,  are  exclusive  prerogatives  of  the  bish- 
ops; but  the  only  prerogative  possessed  by  an  elder  not  possessed  by  a  deacon  is 
the  right  to  read  the  consecrating  y)raye'r  over  the  elements  in  the  sacrament  of 

•'  I'.i  the  early  Church,  from  tlic  close  of  the  peconrl  century,  the  term  ordo  simply  distiu- 
guished  between  the  clergy  and  the  laity,  the  former  beiuo:  the  ordo  ecclrsiasdciis.  Until 
a  compnrr-.tively  late  date  in  their  history,  the  English  Wesleyan  Conference  did  not  use 
the  ceremony  cf  imposition  of  hands  in  designating  to  the  ministerial  office.— T. 


332 


The  Sacraments. 


the  Lord's-supper.  Now,  to  call  the  distinction  between  a  bishop  and  an  elder  a 
distinction  of  office,  and  that  between  an  elder  and  a  deacon  one  of  order,  and  at 
the  same  time  to  attach  any  sacredness  or  important  elevation  in  degree  to  the 
idea  of  an  order,  not  belonging  to  an  office,  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  a  strange  mis- 
nomer. If  the  word  order  means  a  class  of  ministers  ordained  by  the  imposition 
of  hands,  then,  of  course,  all  will  agree  that  we  have  three  orders* 

Dr.  WiiedoD,  than  whom  there  has  hardly  been  a  more  inci- 
Biye  thinker  or  weightier  authority  in  Episcopal  Methodism,  thus 
expresses  himself  on  this  question: 

It  is  held  by  many  in  our  Church  that  the  eldership  and  deaconship  are 
orders,  while  the  bishopric  is  only  an  office.  And  we  have  not  long  since  seen 
it  stated,  even  in  some  of  our  official  papers,  that  we  are  in  fact  Presbyterians. 
The  ablest  of  American  Methodist  theologians,  however,  Dr.  Wilbur  Fisk,  entirely 
repudiated  that  view.  Such  a  position  involves  us  in  the  most  inextricable  contra- 
dictions. Are  not  our  bishops  consecrated  by  the  most  solemn  of  the  three  ordi- 
nations? How  can  there  be  an  ordination  if  not  to  an  order  f  In  the  form  of  be- 
stowing the  three  trusts,  professedly  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is 
there  any  intimation  that  one  is  less  an  order  than  the  other?  Surely  we  are  not 
after  all  the  Methodist  Presbyterian  Church,  or  the  Methodist  Congregational 
Church,  but,  if  we  mistake  not,  we  are  truly  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.f 

Under  the  caption,  "The  Significance  of  Orders,"  Dr.  Whedon 
continues: 

In  regard  to  the  proper  nature  of  ^'  orders,"  we  have  asked,  "How  can  there  be 
an  ordination  if  not  to  an  order?"  This  question  embraces  an  entire  argument. 
The  old  verbs  to  ordain  and  to  order  were  different  forms  of  the  same  word,  used 
in  the  ritual  of  the  Anglican  Church,  of  which  Wesley  was  a  presbyter.  To  or- 
c?er  signifies  to  endow  with  orders,  just  as  to  maj;netize  signifies  to  endow  with 
magnetism.  And  so  Webster  rightly  defines  "ordination,  in  the  Episcopal  CHurch 
the  act  of  conferring  holy  orders  or  sacerdotal  power,  called  also  consecration."  And 
so  the  old  Thirty-sixth  Article  of  the  Anglican  Church  says,  "The  Book  of  Conse- 
cration .  .  .  doth  contain  all  things  necessary  to  such  consecration  or  ordering. 
And,  therefore,  whosoever  are  consecrated  or  ordered,  according  to  the  rites  (  f  that 
book,  .  .  .  we  decree  all  such  to  be  rightly  .  .  .  consecrated  or  orf/e7Tc/."  The 
word  had  this  import  because  to  the  mind  of  the  Church  the  thing  had  this  nat- 
ure. Ordination  was  the  mode  and  test  of  an  order.  As  an  Anglican  Churchman 
Mr.  Wesley's  mind  was  shaped  to  the  assumption  that  a  valid  ordination  always 
conferred  valid  orders.  Although  the  word  order  is  an  ecclesiastical  rather  than 
a  scriptural  term,  and  is  of  very  flexible  import,  yet  the  bc*t  definition  we  can 
give  it  would  be  thus:  Order  is  a  rank  of  minictry  constituted  by  election  and  or- 
dination, permanently  and  successionally  continued  in  a  Church.  Our  episcopate 
would  thus  be  an  order.J  , 

♦Dr.  3Iiner  Raymond's  '^Systematic  Theology,"  Vol.  III.,  pp.  460-463. 
f  Dr.  Whcdon's  posthumously  published  '^Essays,  Reviews,  and  Discourses,"  Vol.  I., 
p.  162. 

J" Essays,  Reviews,  and  Discourses,"  Vol.  I.,  pp.  170, 171. 


The  Five  Pseudo-sacraments. 


333 


Dr.  Wheclon's  conclusions  may  be  summarized  in  the  follow- 
ing quotations: 

He  [Mr.  Wesley]  was  the  founder,  the  spiritual  archbishop,  the  epoclial  man 
at  the  epochal  period,  by  whom  tbe  ordination  was  conferred.  That  ordination 
lie  hehl  to  confer  the  right  of  ordaining  men  empowered  thereby  to  administer  the 
sacraments.  The  office  conferred  on  Coke  had  all  the  attributes  we  can  ascribe  to 
an  order;  namely,  ordination,  exclusive  right  to  ordain,  life-tenure,  and  succes- 
sional  permanence  in  the  future.  ,  .  .  He  did  believe  that  his  was  the  prov- 
idential endowment  to  ordain  a  bishop  for  America  according  to  the  practice  of 
the  primitive  Church.  And  when  the  proper  ordination  of  bishop  was  performed 
Coke  was  as  true  a  bishop  as  if  he  had  been  ordained  by  the  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury. .  .  .  "Whenever,  under  the  approbation  of  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church,  the  foundations  of  a  new  Church  are  laid,  and  its  structure  reared,  ordina- 
tion is  the  divinely  sanctioned  mode  of  authorization  for  the  ministry  of  the  word 
and  sacraments.  And  though  a  Church  may  shape  itself  into  such  forms  as  is 
providentially  best  adapted  to  effect  its  true  purposes,  and  though  other  forms  of 
Church  government  are  doubtless  permissible,  yet  we  believe  episcopacy  to  be 
apostolically  sanctioned,  (hough  not  enjoined,  and  primarily  the  best  form  of  gov- 
ernment for  the  most  efficient  evangelical  action.* 

On  three  grounds,  then,  Mr.  Wesley  was  "a  spiritual  archbishop."  First,  he 
was  a  presbyter  of  the  Church,  a  rank  in  which  the  primordial  power  inheres  of 
conferring  orders.  Second,  this  presbyterial  rank  would  not  constitute  a  right  to 
ordain  without  a  divine  providential  call,  and  that  call  actually  existing  was  the 
second  ground.  Third,  a  people,  also  called  providentially,  with  a  great  future 
before  it,  needed,  waited  for,  and  was  ready  to  accept,  this  ordination  and  its  three- 
fold orders  as  the  fundamental  form  of  its  Church.  And  thus  by  this  conjoint  ac- 
tion and  composite  act  of  founder,  ministry,  and  people,  we  repeat,  in  the  face  of 
all  the  reclamations  which  our  affirmation  has  encountered,  there  was  created  as 
true  an  episcopacy  as  has  ever  existed  in  the  Christian  Church.f 

(5ur  Methodist  Episcopacy,  formed  and  maintained  by  the  free-will  of  the 
Church,  is  the  most  legitimate  episcopacy  extant  in  Christendom.  It  is  co-exist- 
ent with  our  existence  as  a  Church,  a  bishop  being  the  earliest  officer,  chronolog- 
ically, of  our  churchly  organization.  Our  episcopacy  is  based  upon  our  very 
foundations  as  a  Church.  Kone  of  its  essential  attributes  can  be  rightfully 
changed  but  by  a  constitutional  change.  Thus  firmly  founded,  our  great  blessing  is 
that  it  sets  vp,  and  can  set  np,  no  jure  divino  claims.  Our  Episcopalian  friends  have 
an  ineradicable  notion  that  we  Methodists  feel  the  aching  want  of  something  which 
we  have  not  and  they  have,  namely,  a  jure  divino  ordained  line  of  bishops.  But 
from  that  nightmare,  our  prayer  is,  "Good  Lord,  deliver  us."  Our  episcopacy 
will  stand  no  longer  than  the  Church  is  convinced  of  its  value.  The  great  suc- 
cess of  our  history  is  thus  far  its  ample  vindication.  X 

These  Methodist  citations  may  well  conclude  with  an  histor- 
ical survey  of  the  development  of  episcopacy,  particularly  in  its 
diocesan  form,  in  the  primitive  Church.    The  facts  have  seldom 


Essays,  Eeviews,"  etc.,  Vol.  I ,  pp.  160-162.  fibid..  Vol.  I.,  pp.  173, 174. 
■^Ibid.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  197. 


334 


llie  Sacraments, 


been  more  clearly  and  succinctly  stated  than  in  the  following 
epitome  of  Professor  Kaymond's: 

Episcopacy  was  a  natural  growth  from,  or  a  developmtnt  of,  tlie  state  of  things 
inaugurated  by  the  apostles.  As  may  be  naturally  expected,  no  important  change 
occurred  during  the  first  century.  In  the  extant  writings  of  those  times  all  allu- 
sions to  the  matter  of  Church  polity  conform  substantially  to  similar  allusions  in 
the  New  Testament.  Clement  of  Rome,  who  wrote  about  A.D.  95;  Polycarp,  a 
disciple  of  John,  who  wrote  about  A.D.  140;  and  Justin  Martyr,  a  contemporary 
of  Polycarp — all  address  ministers  as  presbyters  and  deacons,  or  bishops  and  dea- 
cons, in  the  same  way  that  they  are  addressed  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  indicating 
clearly  that  up  to  and  during  their  times  the  chief  ministers  of  the  Churdi  be- 
longed to  one  or  the  other  of  two,  and  only  two,  classes.  In  the  writings  of  Igna- 
tius, A.D.  116,  a  distinction  between  bishops  and  presbyters  first  makes  its  appear- 
ance. It  is  said  by  some  that  these  so-called  Epistles  of  Ignatius  are  forgeries,  and 
by  others  that  they  are  interpolated  copies  of  original  epistles.  But  even  if  these 
Epistles  of  Ignatius  are  discounted  as  unworthy  of  confidence,  the  subsequent  his- 
tories make  it  evident  that  early  in  the  second  century  changes  in  the  externals 
of  the  Church  began  to  appear,  and  that  episcopacy  had  its  beginnings  among  the 
earliest  developments  of  post-apostolic  times.  To  our  thought  a  careful  consider- 
ation of  the  facts  of  the  case  will  make  it  appear  that  an  episcopal  form  cf  Church 
government  was  the  result  of  a  natural  growth  from  the  apostolic  germ ;  w.is  the 
natural,  if  not  the  necessiry,  result  of  development.  The  Church,  as  it  was  in  the 
time  of  Polycarp  and  Ignatius,  could  not  remain  stationary;  it  must  e  ther  dwin- 
dle and  become  extinct,  or  it  must  prosper,  develop  its  powers,  and  extend  its  di- 
mensions. .  .  .  Kothing  short  of  a  divine  prohibition  expressed  in  positive 
terms,  either  by  Christ  liimself  or  his  inspired  apostles,  could  prevent  some  vari- 
ations in  tlie  institutions  of  the  Church  from  the  forms  left  by  its  founders,  Ko 
well-defined  system  of  Church  polity  was  instituted;  no  directions  were  left  to 
guide  the  Church  in  its  future  action.  The  Church  for  the  time  being  took  i)n 
s  ich  forms  as  circumstances  required,  and  it  was  left  to  its  own  discretion  in  de- 
termining what  forms  its  future  exigencies  might  demand.  Tlie  great  Plead  of 
the  Cliurch  foresaw  "what  would  be,  and  did  not  interpose  any  prohibitory  inter- 
dicts to  prevent  it,  or  any  precautionary  prophecies  to  forewarn  the  Church  against 
it.  Episcopacy  did  actually  arise,  ar  d  for  at  least  twelve  hundred  years  was, 
without  opi)osition,  the  only  existing  form  of  Church  government  throughout  the 
Christian  world.  It  has  always  been,  and  is  now,  the  form  adopted  by  a  very 
large  majority  of  the  Churches  naming  the  name  of  Christ. 

For  the  details  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  episcopacy,  the  reader  must  be  re- 
ferred to  the  ecclesiastical  histories.  Our  purpose  does  not  require  js  to  refer  to 
them.  The  authorities,  fo  far  as  they  are  reliable,  give  precisely  the  same  ac- 
count of  the  rise  of  this  system,  as  to  its  essential  characteristics,  that  ore  would 
naturally  suppose  it  to  be,  forming  his  judgment  from  the  facts,  statements,  and 
references  recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  With  the  Acts  and  Epistles  as  our 
guide  anrl  the  basis  of  our  judgment,  we  think  of  the  Christian  Church  duiing 
the  first  seventy  years  of  its  history  as  consisting  of  assemblies  of  believers  in 
Christ,  united  together  by  a  form  of  association  as  simple  as  can  well  be  con- 
ceived.   Their  meetings  are  held  in  the  synagogues  of  the  Jews  wherever  they 


1^ 


The  Five  Pseuclo-sacmmenfs. 


335 


have  liberty  to  use  them;  or  in  seminaries  of  learning,  as  in  the  school  of  Ty- 
rannus;  or  in  private  dwellings,  as  in  the  house  of  Stephanas — or,  in  a  word,  in* 
any  obtainable  place  most  convenient.    When  assembled  they  were  seated,  when- 
ever practicable,  after  the  manner  of  the  synagogue,  the  elders  sitting  in  a  semi- 
circle facing  the  people. 

The  elders,  where  their  organization  was  complete,  were  ten  in  number;  some- 
times less,  never  more,  it  is  said,  in  a  single  congregation.  Of  these  one,  Corre- 
sponding to  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  was  the  elder  presbyter,  bishop,  pastor, 
perhaps,  as  in  Revelation,  the  angel  of  the  Church:  two  others  were  assistant 
pastor.=»,  the  three  corresponding  to  what  are  called  the  "  rulers  of  the  synagogue," 
The  ten  constituted  the  presbytery  of  the  Church,  or  its  official  board.  It  is 
probable  that  the  three  rulers  were  ordaintd  ministers,  the  assistant  pastors  being 
as  such  authorized,  in  the  absence  of  the  pastor,  to  administer  the  sacraments. 
The  other  seven  elders  might  be  ministers  or  laymen;  probably  most  or  all  of 
them  were  laymen,  elevated  to  this  honor,  as  Avere  "the  elders  of  the  people"  in 
the  synagogues  of  the  Jews,  for  their  wisdom,  their  gravity,  or  their  age. 

Tiie  services  consisted,  first,  of  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  by  one  of  the 
elders,  probably  one  of  the  assistant  pastors,  to  whom  that  duty  was  S[)ecially 
assigned;  after  which  the  pastor  expounded  the  lesson  read,  and  made  an  Exhor- 
tation to  the  people.  Tiiis  service,  however,  was  not  restricted ;  the  pastor  might 
give  liberty  to  any  one  in  the  congregation  to  address  the  people.  At  least  this 
is  probable,  since  it  not  unfrequently  occurred  in  the  synagogue.  [See  Acts  xiii. 
15,  IG.]  The  sermon  or  exhortation  ended,  the  pastor  offered  prayer,  and  the 
people  responded  Amen.  This  done,  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's-supper  was 
administered,  after  which  the  service  was  closed.    .    .  . 

In  the  infancy  of  the  Churches  it  is  probable  that  all  the  official  members  ren- 
dered their  services  without  any  fmancial  remuneration;  but  it  is  evident  that  in 
all  cases  where  the  people  were  able  to  contribute  an  adequate  support  for  their 
pastor  ttiey  were  required  to  do  so,  and  the  pastors  were  required  to  give  them- 
selves wholly  to  the  word  of  God  and  prayer.  This  is  evident  from  the  frequent 
exhortations  given  in  the  Epistles  on  this  subject;  they  "that  were  taught  in  the 
word  "  were  required  "  to  communicale  unto  him  that  teachethin  all  good  things." 
The  leading  Church  enteri)rise  of  the  times  was  the  dissemination  of  the  word, 
and  in  this  work  all  shared  as  they  had  opportunity.  When  scattered  abroad 
by  persecution  they  -went  everywhere  preaching  the  word,  as  was  the  case  when 
Saul  made  havoc  of  the  Church  after  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen.  And  when  the 
Church  had  rest  and  was  prospered  missionaries  were  sent  forth  with  letters  of 
commendation,  as  in  the  case  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  sent  from  the  Church  at 
Antioch.  This  work  of  evangelization  miist  have  occupied  the  entire  attention 
of  the  Church  and  employed  all  its  resources  during  the  years  of  the  first  century. 
There  was  neither  occasion  nor  opportunity  for  devising  Chnroh  polities  for  the 
administration  cf  the  affairs  of  established  and  prosperous  Churches.  This  work 
began  when  the  condition  of  the  Church  required  it,  which  state  of  things  began 
to  appear  early  in  the  second  century. 

From  the  first  the  pastors  administered  some  form  of  government.  Tiiey  pre- 
sided over  the  presbytery.  The  pastor  was  the  angel  of  the  Church,  the  man  in 
whom  centered  the  chief  authority.  When  there  were  several  churches  in  the 
same  city  the  presbyters  of  all  the  churches  assembled  together  for  consultation 


336 


The  Sacraments, 


concerning  the  general  interests  of  the  cause  in  the  city  where  tliey  dwelt,  and  for 
co-operation  in  spreading  the  gospel  in  the  regions  beyond.  In  these  assemblies 
some  one  must  preside.  As  is  usual  in  such  cases,  the  one  appointed  to  this  honor 
would  be  the  pastor  of  the  most  prominent  Church,  or  the  man  most  distinguished 
and  most  deserving  of  such  honor.  Soon,  when  the  general  interests  of  the  Church 
in  such  a  city  required  the  entire  attention  of  some  one,  the  president  of  the  met- 
ropolitan presbytery  would  very  naturally  be  called  to  sucli  an  ofBce,  and  thus 
become  another  and  a  higher  officer  than  had  previously  existed.  In  the  nature 
of  the  case  such  a  one  would  exercise  some  sort  of  supervision  over  all  the 
Churches,  over  all  the  ministers  and  members  of  all  the  Churches  included  in  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  presbytery  in  which  his  office  originated;  he  became  the  angel 
of  the  whole  Church  in  that  city  and  its  suburbs.  Soon  he  Avas  distinguished 
from  other  presbyters  by  such  titles  as  would  indicate  his  office,  and  the  word 
episcopos,  bishop  [superintendent,  overseer],  was  seized  upon  and  used  for  this 
purpose.  It  had  previously  been  indiscriminately  applied  to  all  presbyters,  but 
from  this  point  onward  it  began  to  be  used  exclusively  to  designate  not  a  "pastor 
gregis"  merely,  but  a  "pastor  gregis  et  pastd-um'^ — it  was  the  title  of  him  that 
exercised  the  general  oversight;  who  was  an  overseer  of  the  Churches  both  as  to 
the  ministry  and  the  membership.  This  is  the  origin  of  [diocesan]  episcopacy. 
For  the  details  of  its  progress  from  this  humble,  natural,  and  praiseworthy  com- 
mencement to  its  terrible  corruption  and  prostitution,  as  seen  in  the  assumptions 
of  the  Eastern  patriarchs  and  Western  popes,  we  must  look  to  the  ecclesiastical  his- 
tories. It  is  sufficient  here  to  say  that  bishops  of  cities  became  bishops  of  prov- 
inces, of  states,  and  of  empires;  became  archbishops,  patriarchs,  and  popes,  and 
became  thus  by  the  same  processes  by  which  power  is  usually  centralized  [imitat- 
ing closely,  however,  the  organic  forms  of  administration  in  the  imperial  govern- 
ment], and  by  which  ambitious  men  make  for  themselves  high  places  and  occu- 
py them.*] 

§  8.  Matrimony, 

The  next  pseudo-sacrament  repudiated  in  tnis  article  is  Mat- 
rimony. This  is  a  state  of  life  allowed  in  the  Scriptures,  but 
yet  has  not  the  like  nature  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's-supper, 
because  it  has  not  any  visible  sign  or  ceremony  ordained  of  God. 

This  opposes  the  teaching  of  the  Romish  Church,  as  set  forth 
in  the  canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  In  its  twenty-fourth  ses- 
sion the  Council  issued  twelve  canons  and  curses  on  the  subject 
of  matrimony.  We  have  to  do  only  with  the  first:  "Whoever 
shall  affirm  that  matrimony  is  not  truly  and  properly  one  of  the 
Seven  Sacraments  of  the  evangelical  law,  instituted  b}^  Christ  our 
Lord,  but  that  it  is  a  human  invention,  introduced  into  the 
Church,  and  does  not  confer  grace:  let  him  be  accursed." 

The  Roman  Catechism  says: 

That  marriage  is  a  sacrament  has  been  at  all  times  held  by  the  Church  as  a 
certain  and  well-ascertained  truth;  and  in  this  she  is  supported  by  the  authority 

♦"Systematic  Theology,"  Vol.  III.,  pp.  465-473. 


The  Five  Pseudo-sacraments. 


337 


of  the  Apostle  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians:  Husbands  should  love  their  wives, 
as  their  own  bodies;  he  who  loveth  his  wife,  loveth  himself;  for  no  one  ever  hated 
his  own  flesh,  buc  nourisheth  and  cherisheth  it,  even  as  Christ  doth  the  Church ; 
for  we  are  members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones,  For  this  cause  shall 
a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  cleave  to  his  wife,  and  they  shall  be  two 
in  one  flesh.  This  is  a  great  sacrament,  but  I  speak  in  Christ  and  in  the  Church." 
When  the  Apostle  says,  this  is  a  great  sacrament,  he  means,  no  doubt,  to  designate 
marriage;  as  if  he  had  said,  the  conjugal  union  between  man  and  wife,  of  which 
God  is  the  author,  is  a  sacrament;  that  is,  a  sacred  sign  of  the  holy  union  that  sub- 
sists between  Christ  and  his  Church.  That  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  his  words 
is  shown  by  the  holy  Fathers  who  have  interpreted  the  passage;  and  the  Council 
of  Trent  has  given  to  it  the  same  interpretation.  .  .  .  That  this  sacrament 
signifies  and  confers  grace,  and  in  this  the  nature  of  a  sacrament  principally  con- 
sists, we  learn  from  these  words  of  the  Council  of  Trent:  "The  grace  which  i^er- 
fects  that  natural  love,  and  conBrms  that  indissoluble  union,  Christ  himself,  the 
author  and  finisher  of  the  sacraments,  has  merited  for  us  by  his  passion." 

The  matter  of  this  sacrament,  the  Roman  doctors  say,  is  tlie 
inward  consent  of  the  parties;  and  the  form,  the  word  or  signs 
by  which  this  is  expressed.  The  administrator  is  the  priest. 
Let  us  consider  the  number  of  errors  manifest  here. 

1.  Matrimony  was  not  instituted  by  Christ.  It  "  is  an  honora- 
ble estate  instituted  of  God  in  the  time  of  man's  innocency."  The 
Papists  say  it  was  not  then  a  sacrament,  nor  was  it  a  sacrament 
under  the  law,  but  Christ  raised  it  to  that  rank,  but  they  fur- 
nish no  proof.  Some  of  them  say  he  did  it  by  going  to  the  mar- 
riage in  Cana;  others,  when  he  said,  "  What  God  hath  joined  to- 
gether, let  not  man  put  asunder"  (Matt.  xix.  6);  and  others,  dur- 
ing the  forty  days  after  his  resurrection — a  convenient  time  that, 
as  no  one  can  prove  that  he  did  not  do  it  then. 

2.  The  Scripture  nowhere  intimates  any  outward  and  visible 
sign  in  matrimony  to  make  it  a  sacrament.  liiivard  consent  is 
not  an  outward  and  visible  sign. 

3.  The  Scriptures  nowhere  say  any  thing  about  the  form  of 
matrimony.    "What  m)rds  are  prescribed  by  Christ? 

4.  The  Scriptures  say  nothing  about  any  priesthj  aclminis- 
trcdor;  they  say  nothing  about  any  administrator  of  marriage. 

5.  The  Scriptures  say  nothing  about  any  sacramental  effect  in 
matrimony.  Doubtless  marriage,  like  every  thing  else  lawful, 
may  be  made  a  means  of  grace;  but  that  is  a  different  matter. 
Where  do  the  Scriptures  say  that  matrimony,  as  a  sacrament, 
"  confers  grace?  "  Nowhere;  and  any  one  may  know  that  there 
is  no  passage  to  the  point  when  the  Eoman  doctors  refer  to 

22  Vol.  II. 


338 


The  Sacraments. 


1  Tim.  ii.  15 :  "  She  shall  be  saved  in  child-bearing,  if  they  con- 
tinue in  faith  and  love." 

6.  The  Church  has  not  always  held  that  matrimony  is  a  sac- 
rament ordained  by  Christ,  like  Baptism  and  the  Lord's-supper. 
We  admit  that  the  Fathers  sometimes  call  matrimony  a  sacra- 
ment, but  then,  as  we  have  shown  in  other  cases,  they  use  the 
word  in  a  general  and  loose  sense,  not  as  we  define  it.  The  jug- 
glery in  the  use  of  this  word  is  transparent.  The  Vulgate  ren- 
ders Eph.  V.  32:  Sacrament um  hoc  mafjmm  est,  erjo  aiitem  dico  in 
Christo,  et  in  Ecclesia."  But  everybody  knows,  or  ought  to  know, , 
that  /xotTTrjptov  does  not  mean  a  sacrament,  nor  is  the  woid  sac- 
ramentum  used  in  the  Vulgate,  in  the  sense  of  our  word  sacra- 
meni  In  this  passage  our  old  translators  render,  "This  is  a 
great  secret."  "Wycliffe  and  Bheims,  rendering  from  the  Vulgate, 
have  "sacrament."  Tertullian  says  that  Adam's  calling  Eve 
"  bone  of  his  bone  and  flesh  of  his  flesh"  was  a  great  sacrament 
concerning  Christ  and  his  Church.    Chrysostom  says: 

That  it  is  something  great  and  wonderful,  Moses,  or  rather  God,  intimated. 
For  tlie  present,  however,  saith  lie,  I  speak  concerning  Christ,  both  that  he  left 
the  Father  and  came  down,  came  to  the  bride,  and  became  one  Spirit.  For 
lie  that  is  joined  unto  the  Lord  is  one  Spirit.  And  he  says  well.  It  is  a  great  mys- 
tery. And  then  as  though  he  were  to  say.  Nevertheless  the  allegory  does  not  de- 
stroy afiection,  he  adds,  Let  every  one  of  you  in  particular  so  love  liis  wife,  even 
as  himself. 

So  we  say  in  "The  Form  of  the  Solemnization  of  Matrimony," 
it  "signifies  unto  us  the  mystical  union  that  is  between  Christ 
and  his  Church." 

The  word  iw(T7rjp'.nv  means  here,  as  frequently  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament and  in  this  Epistle  {e.  g.,  i.  9;  iii,  4,  9;  vi.  19),  a  great 
truth,  long  secret,  but  now  revealed,  as  in  Rom.  xvi.  25,  where 
the  same  writer  speaks  of  the  gospel  preached  to  the  Gentiles 
as  "  the  revelation  of  the  mystery  which  was  kept  secret  since 
the  world  began.*    Mu(7Z7]f)'.u\>  occurs  twenty-seven  times  in  the 

The  word  "mystery,"  in  this  and  all  similar  passages  throughout  the  New 
Testament,  does  not  mean  that  which  is  inherently  dark  and  unintelligible.  It 
does  not  refer  to  any  thing  that  is  incomprehensible,  either  because  of  its  own  nat- 
ure, or  on  account  of  the  finiteness  of  the  human  mind.  It  applies  to  an  object 
which  God,  for  wise  purposes,  has  concealed  or  hidden,  which  he,  at  the  proper 
time,  uncovers,  manifests,  or  reveals,  and  which,  when  revealed,  is  perfectly  com- 
prehensible by  human  intelligence.  God's  mystery  is  simply  God's  secret,  and 
God's  secret  is  God's  gospel,  which,  thought  of  eternal  ordination,  the  Jews  and 


The  Five  Pseudo-sacraments. 


339 


New  Testament,  and  our  translators  have  Anglicized  it  in  every 
instance.  In  the  passage  under  discussion  it  is  not  clear  that 
Paul  speaks  of  marriage  as  a  mystery,  though  he  runs  a  kind  of 
'  allegory  between  that  and  the  mystical  union  between  Christ  and 
his  Church,  because  he  says:  "But  I  speak  with  reference  to 
Christ  and  with  reference  to  the  Church,"  meaning  it  would 
seem,  says  Bloomfield: 

But  in  saying  this  I  especially  advert  to  the  union  between  Christ  and  his 
Church,  that  you  may  apply  it  to  yourselves.  Dr.  Chandler  remarks,  after  Calvin, 
that  the  Papists  would  fain  prove  from  this  passage  that  marriage  is  a  sacrament, 
whereas  /ivtjT^ptov  in  the  New  Testament  is  never  a  sacrament.  It  would  have  been 
more  correct  to  say  "some  Papists,"  for  I  do  not  find  all  Papists  of  this  opinion; 
certainly  Thomas  Aquinas  and  De  Lyra  were  not.  Cardinal  Cajetan  and  Estius 
both  admit  that  the  doctrine  cannot  be  proved  from  this  passage;  and  they  remark 
(what  ought  to  have  no  little  weight)  that  neither  did  the  ancient  Catholic  di- 
vines adduce  it  in  proof.  Indeed,  Estius  adopts  the  sense  assigned  by  the  best 
Protestant  commentators. 

So  falls  this  pseudo-sacrament,  and  with  it  all  the  superstition 
ingrafted  on  it,  especially  the  Romish  dogma  that  tlie  vinculum 
of  matrimony  cannot  be  dissolved  by  conjugal  infidelity.  It  is 
not  true  that  the  Fathers  unanimously  held  this  dogma.  Bing- 
ham, in  his  sixteenth  book,  chap,  xi.,  sec.  6,  discusses  this  ques- 
tion, and  concludes  thus: 

From  all  which  we  may  easily  perceive  that  this  was  always  reckoned  a  diffi- 
cult question,  Whether  persons,  after  a  lawful  divorce,  might  marry  again  in  the 
life-time  of  the  relinquished  party?  The  imperial  laws  allowed  it;  many  of  the 
ancient  Fathers  opposed  it;  some  condemned  it,  but  suffered  it  to  pass  without 
any  public  punishment;  and  others  required  a  certain  penance  to  be  done  for  it 
in  the  Church.  Of  all  which  different  practices  the  learned  reader  that  is  more 
curious  may  find  an  ample  account  in  Cotelerius's  "Notes  upon  Hermas,  Pastor." 
But  though  they  differed  upon  this  point,  there  was  no  disagreement  upon  the 
other:  that  to  marry  a  second  wife  after  an  unlawful  divorce,  while  tiie  former 
was  living,  was  professed  adultery,  and  as  such  to  be  punished  by  the  sharpest 
censures  of  the  Church. 

As  to  the  celebration  of  matrimony  by  a  priest,  which  is  nec- 
essary to  make  it  a  sacrament,  the  Fathers  did  not  hold  this 
view.  Bingham,  indeed,  argues  against  Selden,  that  from  the 
beginning  Christians  sought  sacerdotal  benediction  in  their  mar- 
riages; and  when  this  fell  largely  into  desuetude  after  the  State 
became  Christian,  it  was  required  by  law  enacted  by  Charle- 

the  nations  of  the  earth  did  not  recognize  till  it  was  revealed  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  in  the  fullness  of  the  time. — T. 


340 


The  Sacraments. 


magne,  A.D.  780,  and  in  the  East  by  Leo  Sapiens,  A.D.  900. 
But  it  is  evident  that  in  every  age  marriages  frequently  took 
place  without  the  presence  of  a  priest,  and  were  held  valid  by 
the  Church.  But  those  who  are  curious  on  this  subject,  and  in  ■ 
regard  to  the  ceremonies  connected  with  matrimony  among  the 
primitive  Christians,  may  consult  Bingham's  "Antiquities,"  Book 
xxii.,  chap.  iv.  Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  matrimony 
is  no  sacrament  of  the  gospel. 

§  9.  Extreme  Unction. 

The  last  of  the  pseudo-sacraments  repudiated  in  this  article  is 
called  Extreme  Unction.  This  has  "grown  out  of  the  corrupt 
following  of  the  apostles." 

Bailly  defines  it:  "A  sacrament  of  the  new  law  for  a  sick  man  ' 
conferring  special  aids  for  bearing  pains,  cleansing  from  sins 
and  the  remains  of  sin,  and  restoring  health  of  body  itself,  when 
it  conduces  to  the  salvation  of  the  soul." 

The  definition  of  Dens  is  briefer  and  more  to  the  point:  "A 
sacrament  by  which  a  sick  person  is  anointed  with  sacred  oil  by 
a  priest,  under  a  prescribed  form  of  words,  for  the  purpose  of 
healing  both  the  mind  and  body." 

Here  we  have  subject  and  administrator,  matter,  form,  and 
effect;  but  not  the  divine  institution,  and  that  wanting,  the  sac- 
rament is  worthless,  because  spurious. 

The  Council  of  Florence  says: 

Tlie  fifth  sacrament  is  extreme  unction,  whose  matter  is  oil  of  olives  blessed  by 
a  bishop.  This  sacrament  ought  not  to  be  given  to  any  except  to  a  sick  person 
who  is  in  danger  of  death,  who  is  to  be  anointed  in  the  following  places,  on  the 
eyes,  on  account  of  sight;  on  the  ears,  on  account  of  hearing;  on  the  nose,  on  ac- 
count of  smelling;  on  the  mouth,  on  account  of  tasting  and  speaking;  on  the 
hands,  on  account  of  touch;  on  the  feet,  on  account  of  walking;  on  the  reins,  on 
account  of  their  being  the  seat  of  pleasure.  The  form  of  this  sacrament  is  this: 
By  thk  unction  and  his  own  gi-eat  mercy  may  God  indulge  (hee  whatever  sins  thou  hast  com- 
mitted by'sight,  etc.,  and  in  like  manner  by  the  other  members.  The  minister  of 
this  sacrament  is  a  priest;  but  the  effect  is  the  healing  of  the  mind,  and,  as  far  as 
it  is  fit,  of  the  body  also.  Concerning  this  sacrament  the  blessed  Apostle  James 
says  (v.  14,  15):  "Is  any  infirm  among  you?  let  him  send  for  the  presbyters  of 
the  Church,  and  let  them  pray  for  him,  anointing  him  with  oil  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord:  and  the  prayer  of  faith  will  save  the  sick,  and  the  Lord  will  relieve 
him:  and  if  he  be  in  sins,  they  will  be  forgiven  him." 

The  Council  of  Trent  says: 

Til  is  sacred  unction  of  the  sick  was  instituted  as  a  true  and  proper  sacrament 


» 

The  Five  Pseudo-sacraments. 


341 


of  tlie  New  Testament  by  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  being  first  intimated  by  Mark 
(vi.  13),  and  afterward  recommended  and  published  to  the  faithful  by  James  the 
Apostle,  brother  of  our  Lord.  "Is  any  man,"  saith  lie,  "sick  among  you?  let 
liim  bring  in  the  priests  of  the  Church,  and  let  them  pray  over  liim,  anointing 
him  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord;  and  the  prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick 
man;  and  the  Lord  shall  raise  him  up;  and  if  he  be  in  sins,  they  shall  be  forgiven 
him."  (James  v.  14,  15.)  In  which  words,  as  tlie  Churcli  has  learned  by  apos- 
tolical tradition,  handed  down  from  age  to  age,  he  teaches  the  matter,  form, 
proper  ministers,  and  effect  of  this  salutary  sacrament. 

The  Council  put  forth  four  canous  on  this  subject: 

1.  "Whoever  shall  affirm  that  extreme  unction  is  not  truly  and  properly  a 
sacrament,  instituted  by  Christ  our  Lord,  and  published  by  tlie  blessed  Apostle 
James,  but  only  a  ceremony  received  from  the  Fathers,  or  a  human  invention: 
let  him  be  accursed. 

2.  AVhoever  shall  affirm  that  the  sacred  unction  of  the  sick  does  not  confer 
grace,  nor  forgive  sin,  nor  relieve  the  sick ;  but  tliat  its  power  has  cehsed,  as  if  the 
gift  of  healing  existed  only  in  past  ages:  let  him  be  accursed. 

3.  Wlioever  shall  affirm  that  therite.and  practice  of  extreme  unction  observed 
by  the  holy  Roman  Church  is  re[)ugnant  to  the  doctrine  of  the  blessed  Apostle 
James,  and  therefore,  that  it  may  be  altered  or  despised  by  Christians  without 
sin:  let  him  be  accursed. 

4.  Whoever  shall  aflSrm  that  the  presbyters  of  the  Church,  whom  blessed 
James  exhorts  to  be  brought  in  to  anoint  the  sick  man,  are  not  priests  ordained 
by  the  bishop,  but  persons  advanced  in  years  in  any  community,  and  therefore 
that  the  priest  is  not  the  only  proper  minister  of  extreme  unction:  let  him  be 
accursed. 

The  Eomanizers  of  the  Church  of  England  seem  disposed  to 
escape  these  Tridentine  curses.  In  "  The  Pontifical,"  added  to 
*'  The  Priest's  Prayer-book,"  there  is  a  form  for  the  "  consecra- 
tion of  chrism  and  holy  oils."  In  it  is  this  ^prescription :  "On 
Maundy-Thursday  *  of  each  year  the  bishop  shall  consecrate  the 
chrism  and  oils  of  his  diocese  after  this  form."  In  the  course 
of  the  communion  service  the  archdeacon  or  chai:)lain  is  to  pre- 
sent to  the  bishop  "  the  vessel  containing  the  oil  for  the  sick 
(which  shall  be  brought  from  the  sacristy  by  one  of  the  assist- 
ant ministers,  attended  by  two  deacons),  saying,  'Eeverend  Fa- 
ther in  God,  the  oil  for  the  sick.' "  The  bishop  is  then  to  offer 
a  prayer  for  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  "upon  this  fatness  of 
the  olive,"  so  that  "this  oil  may  by  thy  blessing  be  to  every  one 
anointed  therewith  a  heavenly  medicine  and  remedy  to  banish 
all  pain,  weakness,  and  suflPering  of  body  and  soul."  "The  bal- 
sam and  oil  for  the  chrism  shall  then  be  carried  in  two  separate 


The  Thursday  in  passion- week — the  day  before  Good-Friday. — T. 


342 


The  Sacraments. 


vessels  by  two  priests  to  the  archdeacon,  while  a  third  priest 
bears  the  vessel  in  which  they  are  to  be  mingled."  Then  follow 
superstitious  prayers,  interspersed  with  the  sign  of  the  cross, 
€,  (J.:  "We  pray  thee,  O  Lord,  that  thou  wouldst  hal  +  low  this 
matter  of  holy  oil  and  fragrant  balsam,  sancti  +  fying  it  with  the 
power  of  thine  Anointed.  And  we  humbly  beseech  thee,  O  Lord, 
that  thou  wouldst  enrich  this  fatness  with  the  might  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  make  it  abound  with  the  sweetness  of  divine 
love,  and  establish  it  with  all  bless  +  ing.  Let  it  be  a  holy  unc- 
tion and  a  sweet  savor  unto  thee,  a  sign  of  certain  victory  to  those 
who  are  born  again  of  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  a  joyful  anoint- 
ing, a  hope  of  blessedness,  a  cleansing  from  sin,  a  medicine  of 
life,  and  a  help  on  their  way  to  the  heavenly  country."  There 
is  an  office  for  the  anointing  of  the  sick:  "The  priest  shall  take 
the  oil  of  the  sick  on  his  right  thumb  and  therewith  touch  the 
sick  person,  etc.,  as  prescribed  by  the  Council  of  Florence."  The 
office  closes  with  this  sublime  direction:  "The  cottons  shall  be 
reverently  burnt  by  the  priest." 

Now  it  requires  much  patience  and  self -abstention  to  note  and 
confute  statements  and  arguments  so  weak  and  absurd. 

First,  as  to  the  institution  of  this  wonderful  sacrament:  Eoman- 
ists  say  it  was  instituted  by  Christ,  intimated  by  Mark,  and  pro- 
mulgated by  James.  As  proof  that  Christ  instituted  it  Dens  re- 
fers to  Thomas  Aquinas  and  the  Council  of  Trent.  Of  course 
they  got  a  revelation  of  it  directly  from  Christ,  as  there' is  not  a 
word  about  this  sacrament  in  the  New  Testament.  To  refer  to 
Mark  vi.  12,  13  is  useless.    The  Roman  Catechism  says: 

Our  Lord  himself  would,  however,  seem  to  liave  given  some  indication  of  it, 
when  he  sent  his  disciples,  two  and  two,  before  him;  for  the  Evangelist  informs 
us  tliat  going  forth  they  preached  that  all  should  do  penance;  and  they  cast  out 
many  devils,  and  anointed  with  oil  many  who  were  sick,  and  healed  them. 

This  is  hardly  a  proof-text  for  extreme  unction.  It  is  not  said 
that  Christ  told  the  apostles  to  anoint  the  sick  with  oil  in  order  to 
cure  them,  much  less  in  order  to  their  burial.  He  usually  per- 
formed some  outward  act  in  working  his  miracles,  and  as  oil  was 
used  for  medicinal  and  similar  purposes  in  those  days,  the  apos- 
tles used  it,  not  for  its  curative  properties,  but  as  a  symbol  of 
the  cure  miraculously  wrought. 

The  Roman  doctors  generally  say  with  Ferrarius,  "  This  sac- 
rament was  probably  instituted  after  the  resurrection,  when 


The  Five  Pseudo-sacraments. 


343 


Christ  instituted  penitence,  of  which  the  Council  of  Trent  says 
extreme  unction  is  the  consummation."  O  those  forty  days! 
What  a  godsend  they  are!  It  is  a  wonder  that  Pius  IX.  did  not 
instruct  the  Vatican  Council  to  say  that  Christ  told  the  apostles 
about  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  and  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Pope,  during  the  forty  days. 

The  Council  of  Trent  curses  those  who  say  that  this  is  "only 
a  ceremony  received  from  the  Fathers."  Well,  that  curse  does 
not  reach  us,  because  we  do  not  say  it  was  received  from  the  Fa- 
thers, but  emphatically  affirm  that  it  was  not.  There  is  not 
the  slightest  trace  of  it  before  the  fifth  century,  when  a  certain 
bishop  asked  Pope  Innocent  1.  whether  the  sick  might  be 
anointed  with  the  oil  of  chrism,  and  whether  the  bishop  might 
anoint  with  it.  The  Pope  replied  that  the  sick  might  be  anoint- 
ed with  the  chrism,  and  not  only  by  the  priests  but  by  all  Chris- 
tians, not  only  in  their  own  necessities,  bat  in  the  necessities  of 
any  of  their  friends;  and  that  a  bishop  might  do  it,  for  presby- 
ters only  are  mentioned  by  James  because  the  bishop  could  not 
go  to  all  the  sick,  and  he  who  made  the  chrism  might  surely 
anoint  with  it.  There  is  fine  authority  for  a  sacrament.  It  had 
become  common  to  use  chrism  for  miraculous  cures;  from  sheer 
superstition ;  and  one  bishop  asks  another  whether  it  was  proper 
so  to  do,  and  whether  the  bishop  might  do  it — and  there  is  the 
answer.  So  the  use  of  "holy  water"  arose  from  the  use  of  water 
in  baptism,  and  the  use  of  "  holy  bread  "  from  the  use  of  bread 
in  the  eucharist.  The  superstition  grew,  and  after  the  seventh 
century  oil  was  used  for  anointing  the  sick,  with  a  peculiar  office, 
but  it  was  in  order  to  bodily  cure.  Of  course  the  patient  some- 
times recovered — then  it  was  a  miracle;  but  sometimes  he  died, 
and  then  what?  In  the  tenth  century  the  authorities  began  to 
say  that  if  it  did  no  good  to  the  body,  it  did.  to  the  soul.  And  so 
the  schoolmen  developed  it  into  "the  sacrament  of  the  dying," 
which  was  decreed  by  Pope  Eugenius  and  the  Councils  of  Flor- 
ence and  Trent. 

The  First  Prayer-book  of  Edward  VL,  "if  the  sick  person 
desired  it,"  allowed  the  anointing,  with  a  prayer  for  pardon  of 
sins  and  restoration  of  bodily  health,  without  attributing  any 
sacramental  efficacy  to  it.  But  in  the  Second  Prayer-book  of 
King  Edward  this  was  omitted.  In  1540  Cranmer  had  asserted 
that  there  is  no  authority  in  Scripture  or  antiquity  for  the  Seven 


344 


The  Sacraments. 


Sacraments,  and  especially  that  "  unction  of  the  sick  with  oil  to 
remit  venial  sins,  as  it  is  now  used,  is  not  spoken  of  in  Scripture 
nor  in  any  ancient  author." 

As  to  the  matter  of  this  sacrament,  James  does  indeed  say  that 
the  elders  of  the  Church  should  anoint  the  sick  with  oil.  But  ijb 
was  not  to  put  him  into  his  coffin,  but  to  raise  him  up  from  his 
sickness.  If  he  had  faith  enough  to  be  the  subject  of  a  miracu- 
lous cure,  he  would  have  faith  to  believe  to  the  saving  of  his  soul 
also,  as  both  usually  went  together.  The  prayer  of  faith  pro- 
cured both  the  healing  of  the  disease  and  the  pardon  of  the  sin 
which  occasioned  it.  Compare  the  case  of  the  man  who  was 
cured  of  his  palsy  and  at  the  same  time  pardoned  of  his  sins. 
(Matt.  ix.  1-8.)  But  who  ever  heard  of  any  one's  l^eing  miracu- 
lously cured  by  extreme  unction?  The  very  name  of  the  sacra- 
ment shows  that  Romanists  expect  no  such  thing.  The  priest 
will  not  apply  the  unction  till  the  patient  is  in  extremis. 

As  to  the  form^  who  can  for  a  moment  imagine  that  Christ  or 
his  apostles  could  prescribe  any  thing  so  ridiculous?  And  then 
the  disputes  among  the  Bomanists,  whether  the  form  should  be 
optative  or  indicative,  and  the  like,  show  the  absurdity  of  this 
whole  business. 

As  to  the  administrator^  he  must  be  a  priest.  Now,  there  is  no 
priest  in  the  New  Testament  Church  except  the  Great  High- 
priest,  and  as  all  believers  constitute  a  holy  priesthood.  Conse- 
quently, the  sacrament  cannot  be  administered,  as  there  is  no 
priest  to  administer  it.  The  presbyters  spoken  of  by  James  will 
never  do;  they  were  not  sacerdotes. 

Then  the  subjects.  It  is  hard  to  say  who  they  are.  Extreme 
unction  must  not  be  administered  to  impenitent  persons,  to  those 
that  die  in  manifest  mortal  sin,  or  excommunicated,  or  unbap- 
tized,  or  insane  if  they  "lost  their  reason  in  an  evidently  bad 
state;"  though  some  Romish  doctors  say  that  those  who  die 
guilty  of  mortal  sins,  as  dueling,  concubinage,  voluntary  and 
complete  drunkenness,  and  who  are  suddenly  deprived  of  their 
reason  in  the  very  act  of  sin,  may  receive  this  sacrament,  be- 
cause it  may  be  supposed  that  if  they  had  had  time  and  the  use 
of  their  reason  they  would  have  repented.  What  a  license  to 
sin!    AVhat  damnable  impiety! 

As  to  the  effects  of  this  sacrament — sanctifying  or  sacramental 
grace,  cleansing  from  the  remains  of  sin  and  alleviation  of  mind, 


The  Five  Pseudo-sacraments. 


345 


remission  of  sins,  and  bodily  healing — when  did  any  one  ever 
know  of  these  effects  being  realized  in  a  single  case?  In  answer 
to  prayer  a  sick  man  may  have  his  affliction  sanctified  to  him, 
and  his  bodily  health  restored;  but  it  is  absurd  to  use  oil  for 
this  purpose,  as  the  apostles  used  it  only  as  a  symbol  of  mirac- 
ulous healing.  Indeed,  the  Council  of  Trent  says:  "Christian- 
ity, now  that  it  has  taken  deep  root  in  the  minds  of  men,  stands 
less  in  need  of  the  aid  of  such  miracles  in  o-ur  days  than  in  the 
early  ages  of  the  Church."  And  if  the  Council  had  added  that 
all  the  accounts  of  miracles  performed  by  extreme  unction,  or 
by  other  incantations,  were  nothing  but  idle  tales  and  lying 
wonders,  it  would  only  have  told  the  truth. 

When  Komanists  say  that  as  Christ  instituted  the  sacrament  of 
baptism  for  those  coming  into  the  world,  he  must,  by  parity,  have 
instituted  extreme  unction  for  those  going  out  of  it,  it  can.  only  be 
Ireplied  that  this  is  as  good  an  argument  for  it  as  they  can  adduce, 
and  we  shall  not  attempt  to  answer  it. 

We  conclude  this  discussion,  perhaps  too  far  extended,  in  the 
language  of  the  great  Roman  doctor,  Cajetan: 

It  neither  appears  by  the  words  (James  v.  14,  15)  nor  by  the  effect,  that  St. 
James  speaks  of  the  sacrament  of  extreme  unction,  but  rather  of  that  unction 
which  our  Lord  appointed  in  the  gospel  to  be  used  on  sick  persons  by  his  disci- 
ples [or,  which  they  used].  For  the  text  does  not  say,  Is  a  man  sick  unto  death? 
but  absohitely,  Is  any  sick?  And  it  makes  the  effect  to  be  the  recovery  of  the 
sick,  and  speaks  but  conditionally  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins;  Avhereas  extreme 
unction  is  not  given  but  Avhen  a  man  is  almost  at  the  point  of  death;  and  as  the 
form  of  words  thus  used  sufficiently  shows,  it  tends  directly  to  the  forgiveness  of 
sins. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE  USE  AND  ABUSE  OF  SACRAMENTS. 

The  fourth  and  last  paragraph  of  this  article  reads  thus: 

The  sacraments  were  not  ordained  of  Christ  to  be  gazed  upon,  or  to  be  carried 
about;  but  that  we  should  duly  use  them.  And  in  such  only  as  worthily  re- 
ceive the  same  they  have  a  wholesome  effect  or  operation;  but  they  that  re- 
ceive them  unworthily  purchase  to  themselves  condemnation,  as  St.  Paul  saith, 
1  Cor.  xi.  29. 

Mr.  Wesley  substituted  "condemnation"  for  ''damnation"  in 
the  English  article;  and  in  1816  "1  Cor.  xi.  29"  was  added. 

§1.  The  Abuse. 

There  are  two  points  embraced  in  this  paragraph,  one  neg- 
ative and  one  positive.  The  negative  point  is  this:  "The  sacra- 
ments were  not  ordained  of  Christ  to  be  gazed  upon,  or  to  be 
carried  about;  but  that  we  should  duly  use  them." 

This  statement,  which  is  repeated  with  special '  reference  to 
the  Lord's-supper  in  Article  XYIIL,  is  here  made  in  reference 
to  both  sacraments,  because  of  the  repudiation  of  the  opus 
operatum  in  the  next  sentence.  The  ]Romanists  hold  that  "  the 
grace  of  the  sacraments  is  contained  in  the  sacraments."  This 
led  to  a  superstitious  reverence  for  the  elements  themselves,  the 
elevation  and  adoration  of  "the  host,"  sacramental  processions, 
and  the  like,  of  which  there  is.  not  the  slightest  hint  in  the  New- 
Testament. 

In  baptism,  water  is  brought  and  applied  to  the  subject,  or 
the  subject  is  taken  to  the  water,  as  may  be  most  convenient; 
and  when  the  ceremony  is  performed  there  is  no  further  use 
for  the  water. 

In  the  Lord's-supper,  bread  and  wine  are  set  apart,  broken 
and  poured  out,  distributed,  eaten,  and  drunk,  in  commemoration 
of  Christ's  atoning  death;  and  when  the  ceremony  is  performed 
there  is  no  further  use  for  the  bread  and  wine  which  may  be 
left. 

But  this  subject  comes  up  again  in  Article  XVIII. 

(346) 


The  Use  and  Abuse  of  Sacraments, 


347 


§  2.  The  Rightful  Use  and  Effect  as  Opposed  to  the  Romish 
Opus  Operatum. 

The  concluding  sentence  is  this:  "And  in  such  only  as 
worthily  receive  the  same,  they  have  a  wholesome  effect  or 
operation;  but  they  that  receive  them  unworthily  purchase  to 
themselves  condemnation,  as  St.  Paul  saith,  1  Cor.  xi.  29." 

In  the  Latin  recension  the  reading  is  saJiitarem  habent  effedum, 
"  have  a  salutary  effect."  The  words  "or  operation"  were  added 
in  the  English  recension,  to  define  the  word  "effect." 

The  allusion  is  to  the  opus  operatum  of  the  Papists.  The  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  seventh  session,  Canons  6,  7,  8,  set  forth  their  views 
on  this  subject: 

G.  Whoever  shall  aflfirm  that  the  sacraments  of  the  new  law  do  not  contain 
the  grace  which  they  signify,  or  tliat  the,v  do  not  confer  that  grace  on  those  who 
place  no  obstacle  in  its  way,  as  if  they  were  only  the  external  signs  of  grace  or 
righteousness  received  by  faith,  and  marks  of  Christian  profession,  whereby  the 
faithful  are  distinguished  from  unbelievers:  let  him  be  accursed. 

7.  Whoever  shall  say  that  grace  is  not  always  given  by  these  sacraments,  and 
upon  all  persons,  as  far  as  God  is  concerned,  if  they  be  rightly  received,  but  that 
it  is  only  bestowed  sometimes  and  on  some  persons:  let  him  be  accursed. 

8.  Wboever  shall  say  that  grace  is  not  conferred  by  the  sacraments  of  tlie  new 
law,  by  their  own  power  [ex  opere  operato]  but  tliat  faith  in  the  divine  promise 
is  all  that  is  necessary  to  obtain  grace :  let  him  be  accursed. 

Some  Romanists,  however,  hold  that  the  sacraments  confer 
grace  ex  opere  operantis.  Dens  says,  it  is  one  thing  to  cause  grace 
ex  opere  operantis^  and  another  ex  opere  operato,  and  another  as 
conditio  sine  qua  non,  and  adds,  "It  is  one  thing  to  confer  grace 
ex  opere  operato  physically,  another  only  morally."    He  says: 

To  cause  grace  ex  opere  operantis  is  to  cause  it  from  the  merit  of  the  operator, 
whether  minister  or  receiver,  or  from  the  peculiar  value  of  the  work,  as  it  pro- 
ceeds from  the  operator,  that  is,  from  the  singular  devotion  of  the  minister. 
To  cause  grace  ex  opere  operato,  is  to  cause  it,  not  from  the  merits  of  the  minister 
or  the  receiver,  but  from  the  power  and  influence  of  the  work  or  sacramental 
action,  which  is,  by  divine  institution,  employed  in  effecting  in  the  receiver 
(provided  every  hinderance  be  out  of  the  way)  that  which  it  signifies. 

Bailly  says :  "  To  produce  grace  ex  opere  operato,  is  to  confer  it 
by  the  power  of  the  external  act  instituted  by  Christ,  provided 
there  is  no  hinderance.  But  to  produce  grace  ex  opere  operantis, 
is  to  confer  it  on  account  of  the  merits  and  dispositions  of  the 
receiver  or  minister." 

Thomas  Aquinas  and  his  followers,  the  Thomists,  Dens,  and 
other  eminent  Romanists,  held  that 


348 


The  Sacraments. 


The  sacraments  possess  a  physical  causality,  as  the  instruments  of  tlie  divine 
omnipotence,  and  truly  and  properly  concur  toward  tlie  production  of  their  effects 
in  the  mind  by  a  supernatural  virtue  from  the  principal  agent,  communicated  to  it 
and  united  to  it  in  the  name  of  a  transient  action;  that  such  a  causality  is  more 
conformable  to  the  declarations  of  Scripture,  and  demonstrates  more  fully  the 
dignity  of  the  sacraments,  and  the  efficacy  of  the  divine  omnipotence  and  of 
the  merits  of  Christ.  Besides,  they  say  this  is  more  conformable  to  the  senti- 
ments of  Councils  and  Fathers,  who,  as  they  explain  the  causality  of  the  sacra- 
ments, use  many  similitudes  which  undoubtedly  designate  a  causality  more  than 
usual. 

On  the  contrary  Scotus  and  tlie  Scotists,  Bonaventura,  Fer- 
rarius,  Bailly,  and  many  other  eminent  Bomanists,  hold  that 

The  sacraments  do  not  cause  grace  physically,  but  morally;  that  is,  they  do 
not  produce  grace  as  physical  causes  do,  but  as  moral  causes,  inasmuch  as  they 
efficaciously  move  God  to  produce  the  grace  which  they  signify,  and  which  God 
himself  promises  infallibly  to  give  as  often  as  they  are  rightly  administered  and 
worthily  received.  The  reason  is,  because  the  mode  of  operation  follows  the 
mode  of  existence.  But  the  sacraments,  as  sacraments,  are  something  moral,  de- 
pending solely  on  the  institution  of  Christ,  from  which,  and  from  the  merits  of 
Christ,  they  possess  their  entire  force  and  efficacy  of  causation;  so  that  their 
manner  of  operation  is  not  physical,  but  moral. 

When  Bomanists  speak  of  "  the  sacraments  being  rightly  ad- 
ministered," they  mean  that  all  the  essentials  are  present,  includ- 
ing the  "  intention  "  of  the  priest,  without  which  there  is  no  valid 
sacrament,  and  of  course  no  effect,  physical  or  moral. 

Now  amid  all  these  subtle  distinctions,  doubts,  and  contradic- 
tions, how  can  any  one  form  any  conceptTon  of  what  is  the  effect 
or  operation  of  the  sacraments?  It  is  useless  to  refer  to  the 
Scriptures  for  support,  as  they  are  entirely  silent  in  regard  to 
the  dpus  opeixdum.  They  sometimes,  indeed,  speak  of  the  sign 
for  the  thing  signified,  water  for  the  regenerating  and  sanctify- 
ing grace  which  it  signifies,  and  bread  and  wine  for  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  signified  by  those  elements,  but  in  a  hundred 
places  they  testify  that  the  spiritual,  saving  effect  is  produced 
not  by  the  outward  act,  but  by  the  grace  which  it  symbolizes, 
and  which  is  not  tied  to  the  sign,  though  never  absent  when  it 
is  worthily  received,  and  never  present  when  it  is  received  un- 
worthily, as  our  article  affirms. 

So  the  Fathers  sometimes  speak  in  unguarded  language  of  the 
effect  or  operation  of  the  sacraments,  yet  when  there  was  occa- 
sion for  it  they  plainly  stated  that  grace  is  not  tied  to  the  sacra- 
ment. Thus  Origen  says:  "All  are  not  baptized  with  the  Spirit 
who  are  baptized  with  water.    He  who  is  baptized  to  salvation 


The  Use  and  Abuse  of  the  Sacraments. 


receives  water  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  Simon,  not  being  bap- 
tized to  salvation,  received  water,  but  not  the  Spirit  of  God." 
Even  Tertullian  held  that  baptism  to  unworthy  recipients  would 
be  not  the  fountain  of  life,  but  rather  the  symbol  of  death.  So 
Cyril  says:  "Simon  Magus  Avas  baptized,  but  not  illuminated." 
So  Augustm: 

The  laver  of  regeneration  is  common  to  all  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Trin- 
ity, but  the  grace  of  baptism  is  not  common  to  all.  The  sacrament  is  one  thing, 
and  the  grace  of  the  sacrament  is  another.  Hoav  many  eat  of  the  altar,  and  die, 
ay,  and  die  by  eating!  "  Wlierefore,"  saith  the  apostle,  "he  eateth  and  drinketh 
condemnation  to  himself."  If,  therefore,  thou  wilt  know  that  thou  hast  received 
the  Spirit,  ask  thine  own  heart,  lest  perchance  thou  hast  the  sacrament,  but  not 
the  virtue  of  the  sacrament. 

It  would  have  been  well  if  these  Fathers  and  their  followers 
had  always  spoken  in  this  Protestant,  Scriptural  style,  The 
schoolmen,  to  reconcile  the  unguarded  statements  of  the  Fa- 
thers with  these  views,  originated  the  theory  of  the  opus  opera- 
turn.  The  sacraments  contain  and  convey  grace  to  all  who  re- 
ceive them.  All,  however  unwortliy,  eat  and  drink  the  real  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  eucharist;  but  to  the  unworthy  it  is 
not  to  salvation,  but  to  condemnation.  Simon  received  baptism 
and  the  grace  of  baptism:  he  was  regenerated  by  baptism,  but 
regenerated  to  a  greater  condemnation.  This  is  blasphemy.  To 
what  lengths  will  not  error  go? 

The  most  acute  Romanist  can  give  no  rational  explanation  of 
the  02)us  operafum,  whether  physical  or  moral.  Even  the  Council 
of  Trent  qualifies  the  statement  concerning  the  conferring  of 
grace  in  the  sacrament:  it  is  to  those  who  "place  no  obstacle  in 
the  way."  This,  as  Browne  says,  does  not  materially  differ  from 
the  statements  of  the  English  Reformers.  They  held  that  in- 
fants, for  example,  who  cannot  place  any  bar  in  the  way,  are 
always  regenerated  in  or  by  baptism.  Their  views  on  this  sub- 
ject were  very  nebulous,  as  we  may  have  occasion  to  note  in  dis- 
cussing the  next  article. 

"We  do  not  deny  that  the  inward  and  spiritual  grace  of  the  sac- 
raments is  always  imparted  to  those  who  receive  them  by  a  true 
faith ;  but  we  deny  that  the  elements  contain  or  confer  the  grace: 
they  only  symbolize,  seal  it,  and  assist,  as  a  means,  in  receiv- 
ing it.  They  do  not  operate  as  a  charm,  or  work  like  a  medi- 
cine. They  set  forth  great  spiritual  truths,  and  assist  the  mind 
in  laying  hold  on  them,  as  we  have  shown;  and  this  is  their  sole 


350 


The  Sacraments, 


province  and  effect.  The  Holy  Spirit  alone  imparts  the  power, 
and  secures  the  saving  effect.  "  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth; 
the  flesh  profiteth  notliing."    (John  vi.) 

Regeneration  has  been  experienced  by  thousands  who  were 
never  baptized;  and  millions  have  been  baptized,  but  never  re- 
generated. So  of  the  other  sacrament.  Even  Luther,  with  all 
his  high  notions  of  baptismal  regeneration  and  the  real  corpo- 
real presence  in  the  eucharist,  repudiated  the  oj)iis  operatam. 
He  complained  that  the  schoolmen  and  the  Papists  dreamed  of 
virtue  infused  into  the  water  of  baptism,  while  he  held  that  the 
gift  of  the  Spirit  to  the  baptized  results  from  the  promise  of  God 
to  them,  but  that  the  water  was  still  but  water.  By  his  notion 
of  consubstantiation  an  unworthy  communicant  might  eat  and 
drink  the  bread  and  wine,  but  not  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ; 
because,  though  they  are  present  in  the  eucharist,  the  bread  and 
wine  are  present  too,  unchanged;  whereas,  according  to  the 
Romish  dogma  of  transubstantiation,  the  good  and  bad  alike 
eat  the  body  of  Christ,  into  which  the  elements  are  changed 

It  is  thus  clear  that  the  "  salutary  effect  or  operation  "  of  the 
sacraments  is  not  ex  opere  operato^  but  depends  upon  their  worthy 
reception.  The  condemnation  purchased  to  themselves — that  is, 
procured — by  those  who  receive  the  sacraments  unworthily,  re- 
ferred to  by  St.  Paul,  1  Cor.  xi.  29,  does  not  mean  eternal  dam- 
nation. Kpiixa  there  means  judicial  infliction  of  disease  or  death, 
as  a  retribution  on  those  who  prostituted  the  Lord's-supper  by 
making  it  a  convivial  entertainment.  Eternal  damnation  would 
of  course  ensue  if  they  did  not  repent  and  obtain  forgiveness  for 
so  enormous  a  crime.  Though  no  such  judicial  inflictions  are 
administered  in  retribution  of  such  profanation  of  the  sacra- 
ment in  our  age,  yet  it  is  always  accompanied  by  the  divine  dis- 
pleasure, and,  without  repentance,  will  result  in  eternal  damna- 
tion. 


PART  V. 
ARTICLE  XVII. 
Of  Baptism. 

Baptism  is  not  only  a  sign  of  professioyi^  and  mark  of  difference, 
wherehy  Christians  are  distinguished  from  others  that  are  not  bap- 
tized, hut  it  is  also  a  sign  of  regeneration,  or  the  new  birth.  The 
baptism  of  young  children  is  to  be  retained  in  the  Church, 


Introduction. 

This  is  a  considerable  abridgment  of  the  Twenty-seventh  An- 
glican Article: 

Baptism  is  not  only  a  sign  of  profession,  and  mark  of  difference,  whereby  Chris- 
tian men  are  discerned  from  others  that  be  not  cliristened ;  but  it  is  also  a  sign  of 
regeneration,  or  new  birth,  whereby,  as  by  an  instrument,  they  that  receive  bap- 
tism rightly  are  grafted  into  the  Church;  the  promises  of  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  and  of  our  adoption  to  be  the  sons  of  God  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  visibly  signed 
and  sealed;  faith  is  confirmed,  and  grace  increased  by  virtue  of  prayer  unto  God. 
The  baptism  of  young  children  is  in  any  wise  to  be  retained  in  the  Church,  as 
most  agreeable  with  the  institution  of  Christ. 

This  expansion  of  the  benefits  of  baptism  may  well  be  spared; 
it  is  unnecessary,  ambiguous,  and  very  liable  to  abuse,  as  it  has 
been  grossly  abused;  though  perhaps  it  was  designed,  and  may 
be  interpreted,  in  a  good  sense.  All  that  is  valuable  in  it  will 
be  brought  out  in  the  discussion  of  our  article. 

(351) 


CHAPTER  I. 


DEFINITION  AND  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  BAPTISM. 
§  1.  Definition. 

The  article  does  not  give  a  formal  definition  of  Baptism ;  a 
knowledge  of  that  is  presupposed.  It  might  not  be  amiss,  how- 
ever, to  define  this  sacrament. 

AVebster  says  it  is  "  the  application  of  water  to  a  person,  as 
a  sacrament  or  religions  ceremony,  by  which  he  is  initiated  into 
the  visible  Church  of  Christ." 

In  Summers's  Treatise  on  Baptism  it  is  thus  defined:  "Bap- 
tism is  an  ordinance  instituted  by  Christ,  consisting  in  the  ap- 
plication of  water  by  a  Christian  minister  to  suitable  persons, 
for  their  initiation  into  the  visible  Church,  and  consecration  to 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost." 

§  2.  Judaic,  Johannine,  and  Christian  Baptism. 

This,  of  course,  refers  to  Christian  baptism.  Baptism,  as  a  re- 
ligious rite,  was  familiar  to  the  Jews  before  the  Christian  ordi- 
nance was  instituted.  Hence  the  Jews  expressed  no  surprise 
when  John  the  Baptist  began  to  baptize,  as  if  it  were  something 
novel.  They  were  accustomed  to  receive  proselytes  from  hea- 
thenism, men,  women,  and  children,  by  baptism,  as  well  as  by 
sacrifice  and  by  circumcision  (in  the  case  of  males).  This  cer- 
emonial washing  denoted  their  purification  from  the  filthiness 
of  idolatry,  which  they  formally  renounced,  and  professed  their 
faith  in  Judaism,  and  engaged  themselves  to  fulfill  all  the  re- 
quirements of  the  law  of  Moses.  John's  baptism  was  not 
proselyte  baptism.  He  baptized  Jews,  on  their  profession  of 
repentance  and  faith  in  the  Messiah  who  was  shortly  to  make  his 
appearance.  It  corresponded  to  the  peculiar  character  of  his 
dispensation,  which  was,  as  the  Fathers  expressed  it,  a  kind  of 
bridge  passing  over  from  Judaism  to  Christianity.  Like 
Christian  baptism,  it  symbolized  purity  of  heart  and  life,  and 
was  "  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  as  the  exponent  of  repentance 
and  faith,  on  which  remission  has  always  been  conditioned. 
(352) 


Bijhiitlon  and  Significance  of  Baptism. 


It  differed  from  proselyte  baptism,  as  it  was  not  restricted 
to  heathens  embracing  Judaism,  and  it  confessed  faith  in  the 
Messiah,  wlio  was  shortly  to  make  his  appearance,  which 
proselyte  baptism  did  not.  It  differed  from  Christian  bap- 
tism, which  embraces  all  the  world,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and 
which  recognizes  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  who  was  to  come,  as 
well  as  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  whose  dispensation  it  is  admin- 
istered. (Matt,  xviii.  19,  20;  Acts  xix.  2-5;  1  Cor.  xii.  13.) 
John's  baptism  was  recognized  and  ratified  by  Christ,  as  he 
submitted  to  it  for  his  public  inauguration  to  his  Messianic 
work  (Matt,  iii.;  Luke  iii. ;  John  i.);  and  as  he,  or  his  disciples 
for  him,  practiced  it  during  his  stay  upon  the  earth  (John  iii.; 
iv. ).  Christian  baptism  was  instituted  by  Christ,  and  so  made 
the  perpetual  initiating  ordinance  of  his  Church,  after  his  resur- 
rection, and  before  his  ascension  to  heaven. 

Thus  in  the  great  commission  given  to  his  disciples  on  the 
mountain  in  Galilee,  he  said:  "All  power  is  given  unto  me  in 
heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  bajj- 
tizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost:  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever 
I  have  commanded  you:  and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world."  (Matt,  xxviii.  18-20.)  And  again, 
when  he  renewed  the  commission,  just  as  he  was  about  to 
ascend  to  heaven,  he  said  unto  them:  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world, 
and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and 
is  baptized  shall  be  saved;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."    (Mark  xvi.  15,  16.) 

§3.  The  Apostolic  Practice. 
That  the  apostles  understood  this  to  be  the  institution  of  an 
ordinance  which  was  to  be  perpetuated  in  the  Church  is  obvi- 
ous from  their  constant  practice  of  it.  Thus  on  the  Day  of 
Pentecost,  when  those  who  were  "pricked  in  their  heart  said 
unto  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  Men  and  brethren, 
what  shall  we  do?  Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Eepent,  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  .  .  .  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were 
baptized."  (Acts  ii  37^1.)  So  when  Philip  preached  Christ 
unto  the  Samaritans,  "  when  they  believed  Philip,  .  .  .  they 
23  Vol.  II. 


354 


Baptism. 


were  baptized,  both  men  and  women."  ( Acts  viii.  12. )  So  when 
Saul  was  converted  he  was  baptized.  (Acts  ix.  18.)  When 
Cornelius  and  his  friends  received  the  word,  and  the  Holy- 
Ghost  fell  oil  them,  Peter  said  "Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  well  as  w^e?  And  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  (Acts  x.  47,  48.)  Instead  of  con- 
sidering their  baptism  by  the  Spirit  as  an  argument  against 
their  being  baptized ,  by  water,  Peter  considered  it  a  reason  for 
their  baptism.  They  had  received  the  thing  signified,  and  they 
ought  therefore  to  receive  Ihe  sign — the  outward  attestation 
of  it.  So  when  Lydia  and  the  jailer  believed  they  were  bap- 
tized, and  their  families  with  them.  (Acts  xvi.)  When  the 
twelve  disciples  of  John  at  Ephesus  w^ere  informed  that  the 
Christian  baptism  which  recognized  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  had 
superseded  John's  baptism,  which  only  pledged  them  to  believe 
on  Him  which  should  come  after  him—"  when  they  heard  this, 
they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  (Acts 
xix.  1-6.)  So  through  the  Epistles  of  the  apostles  baptism  by 
-water  is  as  familiarly  spoken  of  as  a  Christian  ordinance  to 
which  all  Christian  believers  submitted,  and  by  wdiich  they 
were  incorporated  into  the  mystical  body,  or  Church,  of  Christ. 
One  might  as  well  attempt  to  prove  that  there  is  no  mate- 
rial world,  that  man  has  no  body,  but  is  all  spirit,  as  to  at- 
tempt to  prove  that  water  baptism  is  not  a  permanent  ordinance 
in  the  Church,  but  that  it  has  been  superseded  by  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit.  In  every  case,  from  the  times  of  the  apostles  to 
the  present,  Christians  of  every  name  (with  the  exception  of 
here  and  there  a  fragment)  liave  recognized  baptism  with  water 
as  an  ordinance  of  Christ  of  binding  force  to  the  end  of  time. 

§4.  Baptism  a  Sign  of  Christian  Profession. 

The  article  says  baptism  is  a  sign  in  two  senses:  it  "is  not 
only  a  sign  of  profession  and  mark  of  difference,  whereby 
Christians  are  distinguished  from  others  that  are  not  baptized, 
but  it  is  also  a  sign  of  regeneration,  or  the  new  birth." 

When  it  is  spoken  of  as  "  a  sign  of  profession  and  mark  of 
difference,  whereby  Christians  are  distinguished  from  others  that 
are  not  baptized,"  it  is  the  same  as  saying  that  by  baptism  we  are 
formally  initiated  into  the  Church  of  Christ.    It  is  an  act  of  ma- 


Definition  and  Significance  cf  Baptism. 


855 


triculation  by  wLich  we  are  admitted  as  disciples  into  the  school 
of  Christ.  It  is  au  act  of  naturalization,  an  oath  of  allegiance, 
in  which,  renouncing  the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil,  we  ac- 
knowledge Christ  as  our  King,  and  swear  fealty  and  obedience 
to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  realm.  By  this  sacrdmenfum, 
we  enter  the  sacramental  host  of  God's  elect,  and  swear  fidelity 
to  the  Captain  of  our  salvation.  It  is  thus,  as  expressed  in  the 
Sixteenth  Article,  a  "badge  or  token  of  Christian  men's  profes- 
sion." It  is  not  indeed  an  indelible,  physical  sign  like  the  cor- 
respondent patriarchal  and  Jewish  rite,  which,  indeed,  was  not 
exposed  to  public  view.  But,  as  the  experience  of  eighteen  cent- 
uries snows,  ifc  answers  the  same  purpose. 

For  water  seals  the  blessing  now 
AVliich  once  was  sealed  with  blood. 

By  this  outward  and  visible  sign  "we  are  grafted  into  tlie 
Church."  Baptism  puts  us  into  the  visible  Church,  as  the  thing 
signified  by  it  puts  us  into  the  invisible  Church. 

Nicodemus  was  familiar  with  baptism — proselyte  Jewish 
baptism  and  John's  baptism — hence  our  Lord  addressed  him, 
"  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee.  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water 
and  of  the  Spirit,  he  can  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 
(John  iii.  5.)  Unless  he  is  born  of  water,  that  is,  baptized, 
he  can  not  enter  into  the  outward  and  visible  kingdom,  which 
is  the  Church;  unless  he  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  realizes  the 
thing  signified  by  the  sign,  he  can  not  enter  into  the  immortal 
and  invisible  kingdom  of  grace  or  glory. 

The  same  thing  is  taught  in  Titus  iii.  5,  6:  "Xot  by  works  of 
righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy 
he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Saviour."  We  are  saved  symbolically  and  instrument- 
ally  by  the  laver  of  regeneration,  which  is  baptism  with  water, 
and  we  are  saved  really  and  spiritually  by  the  thing  signified,  the 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whose  copious  affusion  is  signified 
in  baptism. 

So  baptism  is  called  by  Peter  (1  Pet.  iii.  21)  the  antitype  of 
the  preservation  of  Xoah  and  his  family  in  the  ark — the  one 
being  a  corporeal,  the  other  a  spiritual  salvation;  yet  Peter  is 
careful  to  state  that  there  is  no  real  saving  virtue  in  the  purifi- 
cation of  the  body  by  the  water  of  baptism,  which  symbolizes 


356 


Baptism. 


and  seals  that  which  is  stipulated  by  God  and  us  in  this  ordi- 
nance, and  which  alone  saves  us."^^ 

Paul  says:  "By  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body, 
whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free." 
(1  Cor.  xii.  13.)  He  is  speaking  of  the  dispensation  of  the  Spir- 
it, dividing  gifts  to  all  the  members  of  the  Church,  which  is 
spoken  of  as  the  body  of  Christ,  into  which  all  are  incorporated 
under  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit.  Every  thing  done  in  the 
Church — preaching,  prophesying,  praying,  working  miracles, 
celebrating  sacraments — all  is  carried  on  under  the  direction  of 
the  Spirit  and  according  to  the  gifts  dispensed  by  him. 

So  Paul  tells  the  Galatians:  "For  as  many  of  you  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ.  There  is  neither 
Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  ,bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither 
male  nor  female:  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  if  ye 
be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to 
the  promise."    (Gal.  iii.  27-29.) 

To  put  on  Christ  is  to  profess  his  religion,  and  this  is  done  in 
baptism,  by  which  we  are  incorporated  into  his  mystical  body, 
which  is  the  Church,  constituted  of  believers  of  every  nation, 
condition,  and  sex.    The  Fathers,  therefore,  properly  speak  of 

*  It  has  been  questioned  whether  i-epurr/ua  ever  means  "answer"  or  "stipu- 
lation," because  its  primary  meaning  is  "questioning,"  "  asking."  Parkhurst  says: 
"It  is  highly  probable  that  the  apostle  alludes  to  the  questions  and  answers 
which,  we  learn  from  Tertullian,  Avere  used  at  baptism.  The  bishop  asked,  Dost 
thou  renounce  Satan?  Dost  thou  believe  in  Christ?  The  person  to  be  baptized  an- 
swered, I  renounce;  I  believe.  Thus  Tertullian  ('De  Baptismo,'  cap.  18)  calls 
sponsionem  salutis  an  engagement  of  salvation;  and  (*  De  Resurrect.,'  cap.  48),  re- 
ferring no  doubt  to  the  above  text  in  St.  Peter,  he  says:  'The  soul  is  consecrated 
{sancitur)  not  by  washing,  but  by  answering  {re^ponsione).  To  confirm  the  in- 
terpretation of  tirepuTTjiia,  here  assigned,  we  may  add  the  observations  of  Grotius 
that  eTTefjuTjjfm  is  a  judicial  term,  used  by  the  Greek  expounders  of  the  Roman 
law,  and  that  in  the  glossary  eTspuro)  is  interpreted  by  stipulor,  wliich  signifies, 
primarily,  to  ask  and  demand  such  and  such  tinier  for  a  thing  to  be  r/iven,  or  done, 
by  the  ordinary  words  of  tlie  law.  But  by  a  metonomy,  adds  Grotius,  which 
is  very  common  in  the  law,  under  the  name  of  a  stipvlation,  is  comprehended 
also  the  answer,  or  promise;  for  in  the  same  glossary  knepuTufiaL  signified  to  prom- 
ise, engage.  Agreeably  hereto  Mill  cites  a  gloss  on  the  old  law,  published  by 
I.abbe,  which  explains  eizepuTrjGLg  by  oucyjoy'ta :  A  promvse,  an  agreement  in  words, 
by  which  any  one  answer?  to  a  question,  that  he  uill  do  or  give  some  thing.^ "  When  such 
a  response,  or  stipulation,  is  made  with  a  good  conscience,  bona  fide,  depending  on 
a  risen  and  exalted  Saviour,  according  to  the  next  clause,  that  saves  us. 


Definition  and  Significance  of  Baptism.  357 


baptism  as  j anna  ecclesice,  the  door  of  the  Church,  the  initiatory 
ordinance  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Baptism  is  ijyso  facto  initiation  into  the  visible  Church.  It  is 
a  Church  ordinance;  it  is  administered  by  the  Church,  under  the 
authority  of  its  great  Head.  The  administrator,  indeed,  is  not 
of  the  essence  of  the  sacrament,  as  if  he  must  be  a  minister  of 
the  word  to  make  it  a  valid  ordinance.  There  is  no  proof  that 
Ananias  who  baptized  Saul  was  a  minister  of  the  word,  though 
he  was  a  Christian.  There  is  no  proof  that  those  who  applied  the 
water  in  the  baptism  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends  were  miins- 
ters  of  the  word;  it  would  seem  that  they  were  not;  but  they 
were  Christians,  and  they  acted  under  the  authority  of  the 
apostle,  and  that  was  enough.  Paul  seldom  baptized  his  own 
converts;  he  left  that  for  others  to  do — the  mere  manual  act 
being  subordinate  to  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  yet  more 
liable  to  be  abused  than  that  to  sinister  ends.  (1  Cor.  i.  13-17.) 
If  the  seal  of  state  be  applied  to  a  charter  by  competent  authori- 
ty, it  matters  nothing  who  may  manipulate  tlie  sealing  instru- 
ment; the  seal  impressed  is  valid,  and  authenticates  the  charter. 
Yet  for  the  sake  of  order  and  regularity  it  is  well  that  those  who 
preach  the  word  should  also  administer  the  sacraments;  by  the 
one  they  address  the  ear,  by  the  other  the  eye  and  other  senses. 
All  things  should  be  done  decently  and  in  order. 

If  the  Council  of  Trent  had  not  entertained  unscriptural  views 
of  the  absolute  necessity  of  baptism  for  salvation,  it  would  not 
have  authorized  women,  infidels,  and  Jews,  to  administer  the 
ordinance.  The  Keformers  generally  disallowed  this,  though 
they  did  not  invalidate  baptisms  which  had  been  so  adminis- 
tered. 

Protestants,  for  the  most  part,  recognize  the  validity  of  bap- 
tisms performed  by  Romish  priests  and  ministers  of  all  other 
communions,  in  which  the  essentials  of  the  sacrament  are  com- 
prehended. In  doubtful  cases  the  party  is  allowed  the  benefit 
of  the  doubt,  and  is  rebaptized  if  he  desires  it,  with  or  without 
a  hypothetical  clause,  as  in  the  Church  of  England.  "  If  thou 
art  not  already  baptized,  N.,  I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Indeed,  that 
Church  requires  this,  "If  they  which  bring  the  infants  to  the 
Church  do  make  such  answers  to  the  priest's  questions  as  that 
it  cannot  appear  that  the  child  was  baptized  with  water,  in  the 


358 


Baptism. 


name  of  the  Father,  aud  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
are  essential  parts  of  baptism." 

Calvin  lays  great  stress  upon  the  fact  that  baptism  derives  its 
virtue  from  God  who  enjoins  it,  and  not  from  man  who  admin- 
isters it.    He  says  (Book  IV.,  15): 

Baptism  is  a  sign  of  initiation,  by  whicli  we  are  admitted  into  the  society  of 
the  Church,  in  order  that,  being  incorporated  into  Christ,  we  may  be  numbered 
among  the  children  of  God.  It  has  been  given  to  us  by  God,  first,  to  promote 
our  faith  toward  him;  secondly,  to  testify  our  confession  before  men. 
For  it  is  a  mark  by  which  we  openly  profess  our  desire  to  be  numbered  among 
the  people  of  God,  by  which  we  testify  our  agreement  with  all  Christians  in  the 
worship  of  one  God,  and  in  one  religion,  and  by  which  we  make  a  public  dec- 
laration of  our  faith.  This  is  what  Paul  meant  Avhen  he  said  that  "by  one  Spir- 
it we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body."  (1  Cor.  xii,  13.)  Now,  if  it  be  true,  as  we 
have  stated,  that  a  sacrament  is  to  be  considered  as  received,  not  so  much  from  the 
liand  of  him  by  whom  it  is  administered,  as  from  the  hand  of  God  himself,  from 
whom,  without  doubt,  it  proceeded,  we  may  conclude  that  it  is  not  capable  of  any 
addition  or  diminution  from  the  dignity  of  the  person  by  whose  hand  it  is  de- 
livered. And  as  among  men,  if  a  letter  be  sent,  provided  the  hand  and  seal  of 
the  writer  be  known,  it  is  of  very  little  importance  who  and  what  the  carrier  of 
it  may  be,  so  it  ought  to  be  sufficient  for  us  to  know  the  hand  and  seal  of  our  Lord 
in  his  sacraments,  by  whatever  messengers  they  may  be  conveyed.  This  fully  re- 
futes tiie  error  of  the  Donatists,  who  measured  the  virtue  and  value  of  the  sacra- 
ments by  the  worthiness  of  the  minister.  Such,  in  the  present  day,  are  our 
Anabaptists,  Avho  positively  deny  that  we  are  rightly  baptized  because  we  were 
baptized  by  impious  and  idolatrous  ministers  in  the  kingdom  of  the  pope,  and 
therefore  violently  urge  us  to  be  baptized  again;  against  whose  follies  we  shall  be 
fortified  with  an  argument  of  sufficient  strength  if  we  consider  that  we  are  bap- 
tized not  in  the  name  of  any  man,  but  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  consequently  that  it  is  not  the  baptism  of  man,  but 
of  God,  by  whomsoever  it  is  administered.  Though  those  who  baptized  ns  were 
chargeable  with  the  grossest  ignorance  or  contempt  of  God  and  of  all  religion, 
yet  they  did  not  baptize  us  into  the  fellowship  of  their  own  ignorance  or  sacrilege, 
but  into  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ;  because  they  invoked  not  their  own  name,  but 
the  name  of  God,  and  baptized  in  no  other  name  but  his. 

The  article  well  rays,  therefore,  that  "baptism  is  a  sign  of 
profession  and  mark  of  difference  whereby  Christians  are  dis- 
tinguished from  others  that  are  not  baptized,"  or  "whereby,"  as 
the  English  article  develops  this  point,  "they  are  grafted  into 
the  Church." 

The  Wesleyan  Catechism  exactly  agrees  witli  the  article. 

What  are  the  actual  privileges  of  baptized  persons? 

They  are  made  members  of  the  visible  Church  of  Christ;  their  gracious  rela- 
tion to  him  as  the  Second  Adam,  and  as  the  Mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  is  sol- 


Definition  and  Significance  of  Baptism. 


359 


emnly  ratified  by  divine  appointment;  and  they  are  thereby  recognized  as  liaving 
a  claim  to  all  those  spiritual  blessings  of  which  they  are  the  proper  subjects. 

By  baptism  they  are  made  members  of  "the  lioly  catholic 
Church,  the  communion  of  saints,"  not  of  any  particular  Church, 
only  as  the  catholic  Church  is  made  up  of  particular  Churches, 
and  we  must  necessarily,  except  in  very  peculiar  cases,  hold  our 
membership  in  the  former  through  the  lattei. 

§5,  Objections  to  This  Teaching  Considered. 

Some  object  to  this  teaching  of  the  article  and  of  the  Catechism. 

1.  One  class  of  objectors  assert  that  baptism  is  not  a  Church 
ordinance  at  all;  that  it  is  administered  out  of  the  Church,  and 
the  subject  thereof  is  not  made  a  member  but  by  some  act  sub- 
sequent to  his  baptism. 

Thus  John  Bunyan,  in  his  "Differences  in  Judgment  about 
Water  Baptism,  no  Bar  to  Communion:"  "Baptism  makes  thee 
no  member  of  the  Church,  neither  doth  it  make  thee  a  visible 
saint:  it  giveth  thee,  therefore,  neither  right  to,  nor  being  of, 
membership  at  all."  "No  man  baptizeth  by  virtue  of  his  office 
in  the  Church;  no  man  is  baptized  by  virtue  of  his  membership 
there."  "Baptism  is  not  the  initiating  ordinance."  "Water 
baptism  hath  nothing  to  do  in  a  Church,  as  a  Church:  it  neither 
bringeth  us  into  the  Church,  nor  is  any  part  of  our  worship  when 
we  come  there." 

Dr.  Gill  says: 

Baptism  is  not  a  Cimrch  ordinance:  I  mean,  it  is  not  an  ordinance  adminis- 
tered in  the  Church,  but  out  of  it,  and  in  order  to  admission  into  it,  and  communion 
with  it;  it  is  preparatory  to  it,  and  a  qualification  for  it;  it  does  not  make  a  person 
a  member  of  a  Church,  or  admit  him  into  a  visible  Church.  Persons  must  first  be 
baptized  and  then  added  to  the  Church,  as  the  three  thousand  converts  were.  A 
Church  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  baptism  of  any,  but  to  be  satisfied  that  they  are 
baptized  before  they  are  admitted  into  communion  with  it. 

Very  few,  we  believe,  indorse  this  erroneous  view  of  the  sub- 
ject; and  it  may  be  doubted  if  it  ever  would  have  found  favor 
with  any,  had  they  not  confounded  a  particular  Church  with  the 
Church  catholic. 

It  may  be  true  that  the  mere  act  of  baptism  does  not  make  one 
a  member  of  any  particular  Church,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  it 
does  not  make  one  a  member  of  the  catholic  Church  of  Christ. 
When  Philip  baptized  the  eunuch  he  did  not  make  him  by  that 
act  a  member  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  or  Samaria;  and  as 


360 


Baptism, 


there  was  no  Church  in  the  desert  where  he  was  baptized,  or  in 
Ethiopia,  where  he  resided,  his  baptism  made  him  a  member  of 
no  particular  Church;  but  it  made  him  a  member  of  the  holy 
catholic  Church,  and  entitled  him  to  recognition  by  the  faithful 
in  any  place  where  there  was  a  j)articular  Church,  so  long  as  he 
was  true  to  his  baptismal  obligations;  and  indeed  it  constituted 
him  the  nucleus  of  a  particular  Church,  in  his  distant  heathen 
home.  It  w^as  therefore  as  truly  an  "initiating  ordinance"  to 
him  as  if  it  had  introduced  him  to  the  immediate  society  of  the 
apostles  and  brethren  at  Jerusalem. 

Baptism  is  the  ordinance  of  initiation  in  the  Christian  Church, 
in  the  same  way  that  circumcision  was  the  ordinance  of  initiation 
in  the  Jewish  Church.  Whatever  other  ceremonies  obtained  in 
the  case  of  the  recognition  of  members  in  the  Jewish  Church, 
particularly  in  regard  to  synagogue  privileges  and  obligations, 
no  one  was  considered  a  Jew  until  he  was  circumcised  according 
to  the  law,  and  no  one  who  was  thus  circumcised  was  considered 
an  alien  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  until  he  committed 
some  crime  by  which  he  canceled  his  circumcision.  The  analogy 
obtains  in  regard  to  baptism  as  the  ordinance  of  initiation  into 
the  Christian  Church.* 

2.  Another  class  of  objectors  to  the  common  view  of  baptism, 
as  the  initiating  ordinance,  affirm  that  none  are  eligible  to  bap- 
tism, but  those  Vho  are  already  members  of  the  Church. 

Thus  the  Directory  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  teaches  "  that 
the  seed  and  posterity  of  the  faithful,  born  within  the  Church, 
have  by  their  birth  interest  in  the  covenant  and  right  to  the  seal 
of  it;  that  they  are  Christians  and  federally  holy  before  baptism, 
and  therefore  they  are  baptized." 

And  so  in  the  Larger  Catechism: 

Baptism  is  not  to  be  administered  to  any  that  are  out  of  the  visible  Church, 
and  so  strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise  till  they  profess  their  faith  in 
Christ,  and  obedience  to  him;  but  infants  descending  from  parents,  either  both 


*  On  Good-Friflay,  1832,  the  Rev.  R.  Herschel  baptized  a  Russian  Jew  in  Trinity  Chapel, 
T»ndon,  in  the  iisnal  form,  adding:  "We  admit  you,  not  as  a  member  of  any  particular 
sect,  but  as  a  membei*  of  Chiist's  Church."  Mr.  Jansen,  the  pai-ty  baptized,  was  thus 
made  a  member  of  the  »atholic  Church,  but  not  of  any  particular  Church— the  minister 
baptizing  him  being  employed  by  a  society  consisting  of  persons  belonging  to  various 
particular  Churches.  «A11  the  apostles  and  ministers  of  religion  were  commanded  ta 
baptize  in  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  and  this  was  an  admis- 
sion to  Christianity,  not  to  any  sect  of  it."   SeeJer.  Taylor's  ^Dismasive  from  Pbpery,'"  p.  ii., 


Definition  and  Significance  of  Baptism.  361 


or  but  one  of  them  professing  faith  in  Christ,  and  obedience  to  him,  are  in  that 
respect  within  the  covenant,  and  are  to  be  baptized. 

"The  children  of  professing  Christians,"  says  Dr.  Miller,  "are 
already  in  the  Church.  They  are  born  members.  They  are 
baptized  because  they  were  members.  They  received  the  seal 
of  the  covenant  because  they  are  already  in  the  covenant  by  virtue 
of  their  birth." 

This  birthright  theory,  therefore,  does  not  consider  baptism 
as  the  door  of  admission  into  the  Church.  The  advocates  of  this 
system  do  not  administer  baptism  as  the  formal  medium  of  ini- 
tiation into  membership,  but  as  the  recognition  of  the  birthright 
membership  previously  existent.  They  do  not  administer  the 
ordinance  to  any  infants  except  such  as  are  born  of  Christian 
paiientage;  one,  at  least,  of  the  parents  must  be  a  member  of  the 
Church.  No  matter  if  the  unfortunate  child  be  "born  in  our 
house,  or  bought  with  our  money  of  any  stranger  that  is  not  of 
our  seed"  (Gen.  xvii.  12,  13),  this  birthright  basis  denies  him  a 
privilege  which  was  secured  by  a  i^ro vision  of  the  Abraham  ic 
dispensation  to  a  child  similarly  circumstanced.  Most  certainly 
such  an  ecclesiastical  ostracism  receives  no  indorsement  from  a 
dispensation  whose  benevolently  aggressive  character  is  never 
more  sublimely  illustrated  than  when  its  ministers  are  engaged 
in  discipling  all  nations,  introducing  them  to  the  fold  of  Christ 
by  the  ordinance  of  his  own  appointment. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  this  birthright  basis  of  Church- 
membership  is  inconsistent  with  a  leading,  though  equally  erro- 
neous, principle  of  the  theological  system  of  those  divines  by 
whom  it  is  asserted. 

They  maintain  that  the  Church  is  constituted  of  a  certain  defi- 
nite number  of  men  who,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
were  separated  from  the  common  mass  of  transgressors  by  the 
electing  grace  of  God,  and  who  are  therefore  to  be  considered 
members  of  the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  though  for  the  greater 
portion  of  their  lives  they  may  give  no  evidence  of  a  vital  union 
with  him.  This  vital  union,  however,  will  in  every  case  be  se- 
cured by  "  effectual  calling,"  even  though  in  some  cases  it  may 
not  be  consummated  until  the  article  of  death. 

Thus  Dr.  Owen  ("Glory  of  Christ,"  ex.): 

In  order  unto  tlie  production  and  perfecting  of  the  new  creation,  God  did  from 
eternity,  in  the  holy  purpose  of  his  will,  prepare,  and  in  design  set  apart  unto 


362 


Baj^tism. 


liimself,  that  portion  of  mankind  whereof  it  was  to  consist.  Hereby  they  were 
the  only  peculiar  matter  that  was  to  be  wrought  upon  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
the  glorious  fabric  of  the  Church  erected  out  of  it.  What  was  said,  it  may  be,  of 
the  natural  body  by  the  psalmist  is  true  of  the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  whicli  is 
principally  intended,  Ps.  cxxxix.  15,  16:  "My  substance  was  not  hid  from  thee, 
when  I  was  made  in  secret,  and  curiously  wrought  in  the  lowest  parts  of  the 
earth.  Thine  eyes  did  see  my  substance  yet  being  unperfect,  and  in  thy  book  all 
my  members  were  written,  which  in  continuance  were  fashioned,  when  as  yet 
there  was  none  of  them."  The  substance  of  the  Church  whereof  it  was  to  be 
formed  was  under  the  eye  of  God,  as  proposed  in  the  decree  of  election;  yet  was 
it  as  such  unperfect.  It  was  not  formed  or  shaped  into  members  of  the  mystical 
body.  But  they  were  all  written  in  the  book  of  life.  And  in  jjursuance  of  the 
purpose  of  God  there  they  are  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  whole  course  and  con- 
tinuance of  time  in  their  several  generations,  fashioned  into  the  shape  designed 
for  them. 

This  view  is  substantially  entertained  by  all  those  divines  who 
interpret  the  ninth  of  Romans  and  similar  passages  of  Scripture 
of  the  unconditional,  personal,  and  eternal  election  and  reproba- 
tion of  the  children  of  men.  It  is  a  little  remarkable,  however, 
that  "the  prince  of  divines,"  as  Dr.  Owen  is  sometimes  called, 
should  have  recourse  to  the  one  hundred  and  thirty-ninth  psalm 
to  sustain  his  theory.  Every  child  that  reads  this  fine  ode  must 
know  that  the  psalmist  speaks  in  the  quoted  passage  of  one  of 
the  profound  mysteries  of  nature;  and  neither  the  terms  of  the 
text  nor  the  scope  of  tlie  context  will  warrant  so  outrageous  and 
far-fetched  a  gloss  as  the  doctor  places  upon  it  when  he  says  that 
the  scheme  of  election  "  is  principally  intended."  His  theory, 
however,  called  for  support,  and  Scripture  being  slow  and  chary 
in  furnishing  plain  passages  for  that  purpose,  he  had  recourse 
to  this  curious  and  figurative  text,  which  indeed  furnishes  as 
much  support  to  this  system  as  any  other — that  is  to  say,  just 
none  at  all. 

The  Bible  nowhere  affirms  that  the  Church  is  supplied  with 
its  members  by  such  an  act  of  preterition  as  is  here  affirmed. 
It  does  indeed  speak  of  an  election  which  took  place  be- 
fore the  subjects  thereof  were  born;  but  this  was  not  a  per- 
sonal, individual  election,  but  rather  an  election  of  communities, 
first  of  Jews,  then  of  Gentiles,  to  spiritual  privileges  which  the 
parties,  in  their  individual,  personal  capacity,  might  forfeit  or 
secure  by  the  perverse  or  proper  use  of  their  moral  agency. 
(Rom.  ix.-xi.)  But  it  speaks  of  another  election  which  takes 
place  after  the  birth  of  the  subjects  thereof,  and  in  every  case 


Definition  and  Significance  of  Baptism. 


363 


conditional,  being  suspended  upon  "  repentance  toward  God,  and 
faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (John  v.  40;  Acts  ii.  38; 
iii.  19;  viii.  36,  37;  xvi.  30,  31;  xx.  21;  Eph.  i.  13;  Gah  iii.  26-29; 
Heb.  ii.-iv.)  This  election  is  not  irreversible;  but  there  is  an 
election  which  is  irreversible;  it  is  personal  too,  but  then  it  is 
conditional:  "Give  diligence  to  make  your  calling  and  election 
sure;  for  if  ye  do  these  things,  ye  shall  never  fall;  for  so  an  en- 
trance shall  be  ministered  unto  you  abundantly  into  the  ever- 
lasting liingdonl  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  (2  Pet. 
i.  10,  11.)  "Blessed  are  they  that  do  his  commandments,  that 
they  may  have  right  to  the  tree  of  life,  and  may  enter  in  through 
the  gates  into  the  city."  (Kev.  xxii.  14  Cf.  Matt,  vli.;  xxv.; 
Mark  xvi.  16;  John  v.  28,  29;  1  Cor.  ix.  27;  2^Thess.  i.) 

Dr.  Owen's  allegory  stands  but  a  poor  chance  when  confronted 
with  these  plain  and  uncompromising  passages  of  Holy  Writ. 
We  could  multiply  texts  of  this  complexion,  but  one  citation  is 
sufficient  to  show  that  the  impenitent  and  unbelieving  sinner  is 
not  enrolled  in  the  Book  of  Life.  W^e  are  under  no  obligation  to 
credit  the  absurdity  that  a  man's  membership  in  the  Church  was 
irreversibly  determined  thousands  of  ages  before  he  was  born; 
or  that  while  he  is  making  God  to  serve  with  his  sins,  and  wea- 
rying him  with  his  iniquities  (Isa.  xliii.  24),  he  sustains  any 
other  relation  to  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  than  that  of  a 
miserable  reprobate,  in  common  with  all  other  transgressors — ■ 
eligible,  indeed,  to  admission  into  the  household  of  faith  by  a 
proper  improvement  of  the  grace  which  is  freely  offered  to  all; 
but  until  then  an  "alien  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and 
a  stranger  from  the  covenants  of  promise."    (Eph.  ii.  12.) 

It  is  no  part  of  our  present  duty,  however,  to  enlarge  upon  the 
absurdity  of  this  election  basis  of  Church-membership.  We 
have  called  attention  to  it  to  show  its  incompatibility  with  the 
birthright  basis,  although  both  principles  are  embraced  in  one 
and  the  same  theological  system. 

Observe,  all  children  of  Christian  parentage  are  considered 
members  of  the  Church,  and  yet  on  the  foregoing  basis  of  fore- 
ordination  only  a  small  number  of  them  are  "  elect  infants,"  and 
consequently  all  the  remainder  are  reprobates:  they  have  not, 
nor  can  they  ever  have,  nor  was  it  intended  they  should  ever 
have,  any  part  or  lot  in  the  matter.  If  any  of  these  reprobate 
infants  die  in  infancy,  they  do  not  die  in  connection  with  the 


364 


Baptism. 


Church  on  earth,  nor  can  they  be  admitted  into  the  Church  in 
heaven.*  If  they  survive  the  period  of  infancy,  their  case  re- 
mains unchanged:  it  is  in  vain  for  them  to  say,  "  AVe  have  Abra- 
ham to  our  father;  "  they  are  the  limbs  of  Satan,  and  nothing  can 
constitute  them  the  members  of  Christ.  The  number  of  both 
parties  is  so  definite  that  it  can  neither  be  diminished  nor  in- 
creased. This  is  the  plain  and  acknowledged  doctrine  of  those 
who  place  the  membership  of  the  Church  on  the  basis  of  election. 
Now,  unless  it  be  affirmed  that  all  the  children  of  Christian 
parents  are  embraced  in  this  scheme  of  election — which  none  of 
its  abettors  have  the  temerity  to  assert — it  is  obviously  in  direct 
opposition  to  this  theory  to  recognize  their  membership  on  the 
ground  of  their  Christian  parentage. 

It  will  not  do  to  say  that  election  makes  them  members  of  the 
invisible  Church,  and  Christian  parentage  makes  them  members 
of  the  visible  Church.  According  to  the  theory  in  question,  they 
are  baptized  in  virtue  of  their  birthright  membership,  and  their 
baptism  seals  to  them  all  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
which  inure  to  those  alone  who  are  members  of  the  invisible  as 
well  as  the  visible  Church.  They  are  all  considered  parties  to 
the  covenant,  from  which  the  reprobate  are  eternally  excluded. 
The  birthright  basis  is  therefore  utterly  incompatible  with  the 
scheme  of  election,  while  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  derives 
the  slightest  support  from  the  word  of  God. 

The  patronage  of  St.  Paul,  however,  is  challenged  for  the 
hereditary  basis  of  Church-membership:  "For  the  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is 
sanctified  by  the  husband;  else  were  your  children  unclean;  but 
now  are  they  holy."    (1  Cor.  vii.  14.) 

Numerous  are  the  interpretations  of  this  difficult  passage;  but 
as  it  regards  the  terms  lioly  and  unclean,  here  used  of  children  as 

*Thus  Parreus,  speaking  of  infants  who  die  before  performing  any  act,  says: 
"They  will,  like  others,  be  saved  merely  according  to  grace,  or  damned  according 
to  nature  as  children  of  wrath."  And  Peter  Martyr:  "  I  dare  not  affirm  that  any 
dying  without  baptism  will  obtain  salvation.  For  there  are  some  children  of  holy 
persons  who  are  not  of  the  elect:  Ideo  nemini  sic  [sine  hnptismo]  decedenti  ansim  pe- 
cidiariter  promittere  certam  salulem.  Sunt  enim  aliqui  sanctorum  filil,  qui  ad  proedesti- 
naiionem  non  pertinent."  Loc.  Com.  So  also  Perkins:  "There  are  many  infants  of 
pious  parents  who,  dying  before  they  have  the  use  of  reason,  will  nevertlieless,  on 
account  of  original  sin,  be  damned:  3Iulti  sunt  piorum  infantes,  ante  ullum  rationis 
umm  morientes,  tamen  originals  ilia  peccati  tabes  hominibus  damnandis  suffecerit" 


Definition  and  Significance  of  Baptism.  365 


the  offspring  of  believing  or  unbelieving  parents,  the  meaning 
seems  to  be  that  if  one  of  the  parents  were  a  Christian,  the 
children  would  be  consecrated  to  the  true  God,  and  therefore 
would  be  relatively  holy — not  before,  but  after  and  in  con- 
sequence of,  baptism — whereas  if  both  parties  were  heathens,  the 
children,  according  to  the  heathen  custom,  would  be  consecrated 
to  false  gods,  and  therefore  would  be  relatively  unclean."-  But 
this  does  not  prove  that  the  children  in  the  former  case  were 
entitled  to  baptism  by  virtue  of  the  believing  parent's  faith,  or 
that  in  the  latter  case  it  would  be  unlawful  to  baptize  them. 

If  the  children  of  heathens  were  in  some  cases  admitted  to  the 
fellowship  of  the  Abrahamic  and  Jewish  Churches  by  circum- 
cision, there  is  no  reason  that  the  course  described  by  Augustin 
may  not  obtain  in  the  Christian  Church.    He  remarks: 

It  sometimes  happens  that  the  cliildren  of  slaves  are  brouglit  to  baptism  by 
their  master;  sometimes,  the  parent  being  dead,  friends  alive  undertake  that  of- 
fice; sometimes  strangers,  or  virgins  consecrated  to  God  who  neither  have  nor 
can  have  children  of  their  own,  take  up  infants  in  the  open  streets,  and  so  offer 
them  unto  baptism,  whom  the  cruelty  of  unnatural  parents  casteth  out,  and  leav- 
eth  to  the  adventure  of  uncertain  pity. 

And  surely  the  Church  is  not  obliged  to  reject  the  little  ones 
because  the  parents  may  not  be  alive  and  consenting  to  the  conse- 
cration. It  was  somewhat  bold  in  Dr.  D wight  to  affirm :  "  Unbe- 
lieving parents,  St.  Paul  has  declared,  cannot  offer  their  children 
in  baptism:  and  that,  notwithstanding  themselves  Lave  been 
baptized."  (Ser.  clx.  ad  fin.)  We  find  no  such  language  in  the 
writings  of  the  apostle. 

Whenever  therefore  the  Church  can  receive  these  little  ones 
into  her  bosom  it  is  her  duty  to  do  so;  and  her  ministers  should 
raise  no  objection  to  this  benevolent  arrangement  on  the  score  of 
unknown,  or  questionable,  or  wicked  parentage;  provided  always, 
that  the  guardians  of  the  children  voluntarily  surrender  them  to 
her  maternal  care,  as  Christianity  admits  of  no  compulsion. 

The  faith  of  the  parent  affects  the  Church-membership  of  the 
child  only  in  one  way:  as  a  Christian  he  would  be  more  likely 
to  offer  his  child  to  baptism  than  if  he  were  an  unbeliever;  and 

*  An  account  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Eomans  consecrated  their  children 
to  their  gods  is  given  by  Tertulliun  in  his  Treatise,  De  Anima,  c,  xxxvii.,  xxxix. 
— not  De  Came  Christi,  as  quoted  by  mistake  in  Dr.  Clarke's  commentary  on  1 
Cor.  vii.  14,  where  there  is  a  translation  of  the  passage. 


366 


Baptism. 


it  is  ill  this  ordinance  the  child  is  formalhj  brought  into  union 
with  the  Church,  while  his  eligibility  to  the  ordinance  is  secured 
"  by  the  righteousness  of  One,  by  whom  the  free  gift  has  come 
upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life."  ( Rom.  v. )  This  gracious 
arrangement  constitutes  a  virtual^  and  baptism  a  formal,  union 
with  the  Church.  The  former  is  the  blood-bought  inheritance 
of  every  child,  accruing  to  him  from  the  moment  of  his  birth, 
and  is  entirely  independent  of  parental  character;  and  neither 
reason  nor  revelation  has  placed  the  latter  on  any  different  basis. 

Those  who  adopt  the  hereditary  principle  are  forced  to  forbid 
a  multitude  of  those  blood-bought  infants,  whom  the  Saviour 
has  invited,  to  enter  the  Church,  and  they  will  answer  for  it  to 
its  exalted  Head.  The  best  apology  they  will  be  able  to  make  is 
involuntary  mistake,  which  no  doubt  will  be  accepted  by  our 
merciful  Judge. 

The  truth  on  this  subject,  however,  is  so  obvious  that  it  can- 
not be  altogether  overlooked  or  ignored  by  the  advocates  of  the 
error  we  have  just  refuted.  Thus  the  AVestminster  Directory, 
in  contradiction  of  its  other  instructions  on  baptism,  Leaches 
"that  children  by  baptism  are  solemnly  received  into  the  bosom 
of  the  visible  Church,  distinguished  from  the  world  and  them 
that  are  without,  and  united  with  believers."  And  the  Larger 
Catechism  teaches  that  "baptism  is  a  sacrament  whereby  the 
parties  baptized  are  solemnly  admitted  into  the  visible  Church, 
and  enter  into  an  open  and  professed  engagement  to  be  wholly 
and  only  the  Lord's."  And  the  proof-text  cited  for  this  point  is 
1  Cor.  xii.  13:  "For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one 
body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or 
free;  and  have  all  been  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit." 

This  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  analogy  of  faith,  the 
reason  and  fitness  of  things,  the  current  language  of  inspiration, 
and  the  teaching  of  the  great  body  of  the  Church  in  every  nge. 
Nearly  all,  ancients  and  moderns,  speak  of  baptism — to  use  the 
phrase  of  St.  Augustin — as  janua  ecclesice,  "the  door  of  the 
Church,"  the  ordinance  by  which  we  are  introduced  to  the  com- 
munion of  saints. 

So  far  as  our  children  are  concerned,  it  is  of  incalculable  im- 
portance, as  it  is  a  formal  and  solemn  recognition  of  their  claims 
upon  the  care  and  oversight  of  the  Church.  It  is  the  initiative 
of  a  course  of  ecclesiastical  training  and  discipline  by  which 


Definition  and  Significance  of  Baptism. 


367 


they  are  to  be  prepared,  witli  the  blessing  and  grace  of  God,  for 
all  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the  Christian  life.  It  is  not 
to  be  looked  upon  as  an  isolated  act,  but  as  the  commencement 
of  a  religious  career;  a  covenant  transaction  to  be  constantly 
reverted  to  in  every  stage  of  their  progress,  as  it  never  loses  its 
meaning,  virtue,  and  use,  as  a  sign  and  seal  and  means  of  grace. 

It  is  no  part  of  our  present  duty  to  enlarge  upon  the  religious 
training  to  which  the  children  of  the  Church  shoukl  be  subjected. 
It  is  obvious  that  a  large  portion  of  it  devolves  upon  their  do- 
mestic guardians,  Avho  are  accordingly  to  be  held  accountable  in 
the  premises.  The  neglect  of  parental  duty  is  a  matter  which 
comes  legitimately  under  the  disciplinary  jurisdiction  of  the 
Church.  Surely  none  can  be  acceptable  members  of  the  Church 
who  do  not  endeavor  to  bring  up  their  children  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord. 

But,  in  addition  to  the  discipline  tlmg  brought  to  bear  upon 
baptized  children,  there  is  a  more  direct  ecclesiastical  oversight 
to  which  they  are  entitled.  The  Church  is  bound  to  give  all 
diligence  to  instruct  them  in  the  principles  of  religion,  so  that 
they  may  comprehend  their  baptismal  obligations  and  be  in- 
duced to  discharge  the  same.  In  primitive  times  this  was  done 
in  catecliumenical  schools,  which  are  coeval  with  Christianity. 
Sunday-schools,  duly  recognized  by  the  Church  and  faithfully 
supervised  by  its  pastors,  are  admirably  adaj^ted  to  answer  this 
good  end. 

The  judicious  observations  of  Dr.  Dwight  on  this  subject  are 
worthy  of  special  note.    He  says  (Sermons  clvii.  and  clxii.): 

That  infants  should  be  baptized  and  then  be  left  by  ministers  and  Cliurclies  in 
a  situation  undistinguishable  from  that  of  other  children,  appears  to  me  irrecon- 
cilable with  any  scriptural  view  of  the  nature  and  importance  of  this  sacrament. 

Ministers  ought,  in  my  view,  to  make  it  a  business  of  their  ministerial  office 
distinctly  to  unfold  to  them  the  nature  of  tlieir  relation  to  God  and  his  Church, 
and  solemnly  to  enforce  on  them  the  duties  arising  from  this  relation — particu- 
larly the  duties  of  repentance  and  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  of  giving  themselves  up 
to  God  in  his  covenant,  and  taking  upon  themselves  openly  the  character  of 
Christians.  This,  I  apprehend,  should  be  done  not  only  from  the  desk  [pulpit], 
but  in  a  regular  course  of  laborious  catechetical  instruction.  The  same  thing 
should  be  explicitly  and  solemnly  enjoined  from  time  to  time  upon  their  parents: 
one  of  whose  first  duties  it  is,  in  my  apprehension,  to  co-operate  faithfully  with 
their  ministers  in  teaching  and  enjoining  these  things  upon  their  children.  Were 
these  things  begun  as  soon  as  the  children  were  capable  of  understanding  them, 
and  pursued  through  every  succeeding  period  of  their  nonage,  a  fair  prospect,  as 


Baptism. 


it  seems  to  me,  would  be  opened  for  the  vigorous  growth  and  abundant  fruitful- 
ness  of  tliis  nursery  of  the  Church. 

Should  baptized  persons,  with  these  advantages,  conduct  tliemselvcs  frowardly 
in  a  course  of  open,  obstinate  iniquity,  after  they  have  come  to  years  of  discretion, 
the  Church  may,  with  the  strictest  propriety,  shut  them  out  from  tlicse  privileges 
until  by  a  penitent  and  becoming  deportment  they  shall  manifest  their  contrition 
for  their  guilty  conduct — not  however  without  previous  and  ample  admonition. 

I  will  further  suggest  that,  in  my  own  view,  it  is  a  part  of  the  duty  of  each 
Church,  at  their  meetings  for  evangelical  conversation  and  prayer,  to  summon 
the^ baptized  persons,  who  are  minors,  to  be  present  at  convenient  seasons,  while 
the  Church  ofTers  up  prayer  to  God  peculiarly  for  them;  and  to  pray  for  them 
particularly  at  other  meetings  holden  for  these  purposes.  Were  all  these  things 
regularly  and  faithfully  done  (and  they  all  seem  to  grow  out  of  the  circumstances 
of  persons  baptized  in  their  inAincy),  I  can  not  help  believing  that  a  new  face 
would,  in  a  great  measure,  be  put  upon  the  condition  and  character  of  the  per- 
sons in  question.  It  must  be  acknowledged  that  much  less  attention  is  paid  to 
them  in  modern  than  in  ancient  times — at  least  by  Churches  in  general — and  less, 
I  think,  by  ourselves  than  by  our  ancestors. 

As  the  exclusion  from  baptism,  of  all  cliildren  of  non-com- 
municants, though  they  may  be  nominal  Christians,  is  consid- 
ered a  great  hardship,  and  very  demoralizing  in  its  consequences, 
some  Calvinists  have  introduced  the  law  of  atavism,  by  which 
law,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  any  one  of  the  ancestors  of  a  child 
was  a  Christian,  the  child  is  thereby  entitled  to  baptism.  By 
this  charitable  expedient  almost  all  children  in  Christian  coun- 
tries may  be  admitted  to  the  ordinance. 

§  G.  Baptism  a  Sign  of  Regeneration. 

The  article  proceeds  to  say  that  baptism  "is  also  a  sign  of 
regeneration,  or  the  new  birth." 

It  is  a  source  of  great  satisfaction  that  the  compilers  of  the 
articles  were  led  to  use  this  language.  Why  did  they  not  say 
that  it  is  regeneration,  or  the  new  birth?  Bishop  Browne  com- 
plains that 

It  is  difficult  to  find  any  exact  model  on  which  this  article  is  formed.  It  bears 
little  resemblance  to  any  former  article  in  any  otiier  Confession,  either  English 
or  foreign.  It  is  decidedly  penned  with  considerable  caution.  It  begins  with  a 
denial  of  the  Zuinglian  notion  that  "baptism  is  a  mere  sign  of  profession  or  mark 
of  difference."  It  continues,  that  it  is  "a  sign  of  regeneration,  or  new  birtli." 
So  far,  however,  its  statement  is  not  much  more  than  Zuinglius's. 

But  the  Bishop  takes  comfort  from  the  clauses  which  we  have 
omitted.  He  thinks  that  they  are  nebulous  and  confused,  but 
still  may  teach  baptismal  regeneration.  "  Whence  the  confu- 
sion sprung,  if  such  it  were,"  he  somewhat  confusedly  adds,  "it 


Definition  and  Significance  of  Baptism. 


369 


may  be  hard  to  say.  The  Latin  and  English  have  both  au- 
thority; but  one  does  not  explain  the  other.  Perhaps  they 
rather  supply  than  explain  each  other."  With  this  "confusion" 
we  have  but  little  concern,  as  we  are  well  rid  of  it. 

The  good  bishop '  is  evidently  much  dissatisfied  with  this 
article,  as  he  has  occasion  to  be.    He  says: 

It  has  been  truly  observed  that  the  article  Avhich  expressly  treats  of  baptism 
speaks  less  distinctly  than  any  other  authorized  document,  and  is  more  easily  ex- 
plained away.  "Why  this  should  have  been  is  not  apparent.  The  primate  and 
his  coadjutor,  Ridley,  perpetually,  both  before  and  after  the  publication  of  the  ar- 
ticles, expressed  their  own  views  in  strong  and  unmistakable  language.  It  is  cer- 
tain that  the  bishops  and  clergy  in  general  were  not  more  disposed  to  Zuinglian 
doctrines  than  the  primate;  but,  on  the  contrary,  were  rather  more  favorable  to 
Romanism  and  doctrines  verging  on  Romanism.  The  article  could  not  therefore 
liave  been  softened  to  please  them.  It  is  not  impossible  that  the  king  himself, 
young  as  he  was,  may  have  had  some  leaning  to  the  Swiss  Reformers,  and  that  to 
please  him,  and  perhaps  to  satisfy  some  foreign  divines,  a  certain  degree  of  am- 
biguity may  have  been  allowed. 

We  suppose  the  bishop  thought  a  poor  apology  better  than 
none;  but  we  can  scarcely  conceive  of  any  weaker  than  this.  Why 
should  the  king,  young  as  he  was,  want  the  article  softened, 
when  the  Office  for  Infant  Baptism,  put  out  nearly  at  the  same 
time,  and  enjoined  by  the  same  authority,  is  hard  enough  for 
a  Romanist.  It  affirms  that  every  child  baptized  is  in  or  by 
baptism  spiritually  regenerated.  Here  is  the  language:  "This 
child  is  by  baptism  regenerated;"  and,  "we  yield  thee  most 
hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  thee 
to  regenerate 'this  infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit."  Can  language 
be  more  explicit,  more  unambiguous  than  this?  Bishop 
Browne,  in  a  most  elaborate,  historical  argument,  proves  beyond 
all  possibility  of  refutation  that  such  was  the  belief  of  the 
Lutheran  Reformers,  and  of  the  Anglican  Reformers  who  cop- 
ied after  them,  as  they  copied  after  the  Fathers,  who  came 
nearer  to  a  unanimous  consent  on  this  dogma,  erroneous  as  it 
is,  than  on  any  other.  It  is  true  they  all  contradicted  them- 
selves: that  was  unavoidable;  Romanists  do  that.  They  can  not 
avoid  speaking  of  baptism  as  "  the  outward  and  visible  sign  of 
the  inward  and  spiritual  grace,"  as  well  as  "a  means  whereby 
we  receive  the  same,  and  a  pledge  to  assure  us  thereof."  It 
would  seem  that  language  can  not  more  clearly  show  that  the 
sign  is  one  thing,  and  the  thing  signified  another.  Baptism  is 
not  that  which  it  signifies,  pledges,  and  assists  us  in  realizing. 
24  Vol.  II. 


370 


Baptism. 


§7.  Baptismal  Regeneration  Disproved  and  Repudiated. 
Now,  we  hold  to  the  truth,  and  reject  the  error.  We  are 
not  in  a  dilemma;  we  are  not  obliged  to  embrace  Zuinglianism 
in  order  to  avoid  Eomanism  (for  such  is  baptismal  regeneration); 
we  avoid  both  Scylla  and  Charybdis.  We  stand  by  our  article. 
Baptism  is  not  regeneration,  in  the  sense  in  which  we  use  that 
term  in  theology;  but  "  it  is  the  sign  of  regeneration,  or  the  new 
birth." 

The  word,  "regeneration,"  -a/dyyt^^zaia^  occurs  but  twice  in  the 
New  Testament.  Matt.  xix.  28:  "Verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
That  ye  which  have  followed  me,  in  the  regeneration  when  the 
Son  of  man  shall  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall 
sit  upon  twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel." 
The  words,  "  in  the  regeneration,"  as  indicated  by  the  common 
punctuation,  are  to  be  joined  with  what  follows.  It  means  per- 
haps the  nev/  dispensation,  which  was  fully  inaugurated  after 
our  Lord's  ascension,  when  he  was  seated  on  the  mediatorial 
throne,  and  the  apostles  were  invested  with  authority  to  govern 
the  Church,  the  Israel  of  God,  which  dispensation  is  consum- 
mated at  the  resurrection  and  final  judgment.  The  word  here, 
of  course,  has  no  relation  to  baptism. 

But  it  has  in  the  other  place — Titus  iii.  5,  6:  "  Not  by 
works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  according  to 
his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour."  Aoo-()<'r>  means  "a  bath,  water 
for  bathing — a  bathing,  washing,  ablution."  It  is  so  used  in 
Eph.  V.  26.  As  the  ancient  loiitron  was  not  a  bath  in  which 
to  plunge,  but  a  vessel  in  which  the  bather  sat  while  an 
attendant  poured  water  copiously  on  him,  it  well  represents  bap- 
tism, which,  as  Parkhurst  says,  was  anciently  administered  by  a 
copious  pouring  of  water  upon  the  head  of  the  subject.  Hence 
the  apostle  says,  "which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly,"  that  is, 
"poured  on  us  copiously,"  as  the  Spirit  was  poured  upon  the 
disciples  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  and  so  it  would  seem  the 
water  too,  in  baptism,  by  which  the  former  was  symbolized. 
The  x^hrase  therefore,  "the  washing  of  regeneration,"  denotes 
baptism,  as  it  symbolizes  the  "renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
It  here  indicates  the  entrance  on  the  new  life,  baptism  being 
the  rite  of  initiation.    The  converts  from  heathenism  to  whom 


Definition  and  Significance  of  Baptism. 


371 


the  apostle  refers  were  baptized  when  they  abandoned  their 
old,  impure  mode  of  life,  and  entered  upon  a  new  and  a  holy 
life.  The  Jews  called  the  ceremony  by  which  proselytes  were 
initiated  into  the  Jewish  Church  "regeneration,"  a  new  birth, 
because  it  symbolized  a  new  life.  The  Fathers  used  the  word 
in  the  same  sense  of  baptism:  only,  unfortunately,  in  their  bom- 
bastic, rhetorical  way  of  writing,  they  attached  to  the  thing 
what  they  knew  very  well  belonged  to  the  thing  signified.  They 
speak  of  being  born  like  "  little  fishes  "  in  the  water,  like  Christ 
the  Ichthus,  making  a  pun  out  of  this  title,  the  big  fish,  and 
all  such  puerile  nonsense.  But  in  their  sober  moments  they 
speak  very  differently,  and  repudiate  the  notion  that  water  can 
change  the  nature:  nothing  but  the  Holy  Spirit  can  do  that,  and 
they  frequently  deny  that  his  grace  is  tied  to  the  ordinance, 
though  when  no  obstacle  is  presented  it  may  accompany  it. 
This  of  course  we  admit,  following  them  wdien  they  follow 
Scripture  and  reason,  and  leaving  them  when  they  run,  as  they 
so  often  do,  into  fanaticism  and  folly.  Tlius,  whether  "the  wash- 
ing of  regeneration"  denotes  the  new  state  into  which  men  are 
brought  when  converted  from  heathenism  to  Christianity,  or  the 
new  character  being  produced  by  "the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  or  whether  the  washing  is  symbolical  of  regeneration  in 
the  sense  of  inward,  spiritual  renewal,  the  passage  proves 
nothing  for  the  Romish  notiou  of  baptismal  regeneration. 

AYhat  is  regeneration,  as  the  terra  is  used  in  theology  and  in 
this  article?    Here  is  how  it  is  defined  in  the  Catechism: 

Q.  What  is  regeneration,  or  the  new  birth?  A.  It  is  that  great  change  wliicli 
God  works  in  the  soul  when  he  raises  it  from  the  death  of  sin  to  the  life  of  right- 
eousness. It  is  the  change  wrought  in  the  Avhole  soul  by  the  Almighty  when  it 
is  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus,  when  it  is  renewed  after  the  image  of  God,  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness. 

•  The  proof -texts  adduced  are  these:  2  Cor.  v.  17:  "Therefore 
if  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature;  old  things  are 
passed  away;  behold,  all  things  are  become  new."  John  iii.  3: 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdon  of  God." 
2  Thess.  ii.  12:  "God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  sal- 
vation, through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit." 

Now  we  ask.  Did  any  one  ever  know  this  great  w^ork  wrought 
in  the  case  of  any  infant  in  baptism?  One  can  not  ask  this 
question  without  provoking  a  smile.    Did  any  one  ever  know 


372 


Bapfism, 


this  great  work  to  be  wrought  in  the  case  of  any  adult  in  bap- 
tism ?  We  have  seen  many  adults  baptized,  have  baptized  many 
with  our  own  hands,  and  yet  we  have  never  seen  a  single  in- 
stance of  the  kind.  Charles  AVesley  does  indeed  speak  of  one. 
We  have  known  many  regenerated  persons,  have  been  with  them 
when  they  experienced  the  great  change  from  death  unto  life; 
but  in  most  cases  they  had  been  baptized  in  their  infancy,  in' 
some  cases  in  mature  years,  sometimes  not  till  after  they  had 
exx^erienced  this  change,  and,  sad  to  say,  we  have  known  thou- 
sands who  were  baptized,  but  never  regenerated,  never  made 
by  this  spiritual  change  new  creatures  in  Christ  Jesus.  The 
Fathers  generally,  the  Schoolmen,  Romanists,  Lutherans,  and 
Anglicans  to  a  great  extent,  hold  that  all  are  regenerated  in 
baptism  where  no  bar  is  interposed,  which  is  never  the  case 
with  infants.    But  we  have  seen  that  this  is  a  great  error. 

Augustin  is  called  by  Bishop  Browne  "perhaps  the  great- 
est of  uninspired  divines  " — a  most  unaccountable  remark,  as  the 
works  of  Augustin  are  filled  with  puerilities,  false  expositions 
of  Scripture,  crude  notions  of  philosophy,  horrible  as  well  as 
erroneous  dogmas,  and  palpable  contradictions.  He  is,  indeed, 
entitled  to  no  consideration  in  a  question  of  this  sort;  it  really 
matters  not  what  stupid  notions  he  entertained.  But  he  is  con- 
tinually cited  in  discussions  on  this  subject.  What,  then,  did 
he  hold?  He  held  that  all  unbaptized  infants,  as  well  as  unbap- 
tized  adults,  who  die,  are  damned.  And  he,  forsooth,  is  the 
greatest  of  all  uninspired  divines.  Why,  such  a  hard  father  of 
infants,  as  he  was  called,  would  not  be  admitted  to  any  evangel- 
ical pulpit  in  the  world;  he  is  held  in  execration  by  all  mothers, 
as  Coleridge,  perhaps,  says.  We  would  not  care  to  receive  such 
a  one  into  our  house.  He  held,  moreover,  that  all  are  regen- 
erated in  baptism,  all  are  renewed  by  the  Spirit,  but  only  those 
predestinated  to  eternal  life  have  inamissible  grace  vouchsafed 
to  them.  Both  are  alike  regenerated;  but  the  non-elect  will 
fall  away  and  perish,  while  the  elect  will  persevere  to  the  end, 
and  be  saved.  Singular  teaching  for  "the  greatest  of  unin- 
spired divines!  "  Is  there  a  man  living  that  entertains  notions 
so  absurd? 

Calvin  differed  from  his  great  master.  He  held  that  all  are 
regenerated  in  baptism  if  they  are  of  the  elect,  but  not  if  they 
are  of  the  reprobate :  the  latter,  baptized  or  not  baptized,  dying 


Definition  and  Significance  of  Baptism. 


373 


in  infancy  or  in  mature  life,  are  never  regenerated.  All  the 
elect  are  regenerated  in  baptism  and  have  inamissible  grace 
given  to  them,  so  that  though  they  may  sin  in  after  life,  they 
can  never  perish.  Moreover,  if  any  of  the  elect  fail  to  receive 
baptism,  they  will  be  regenerated  and  saved  without  it. 

Some  of  his  followers,  knowing  that  regeneration  seldom  takes 
place  in  baptism  in  the  case  of  adults,  and  never  in  the  case  of 
infants,  still  speak  of  grace  vouchsafed  in  baptism,  as  a  mere 
potential  principle,  dormant  and  inactive,"  which  will  be  devel- 
oped in  after  life  by  effectual  calling  whenever  the  Spirit  pleaseth 
in  the  case  of  all  the  elect.  It  is  strange  that  they  do  not  see  the 
incongruity,  not  to  say  sacrilege,  of  baptizing  reprobates  who 
have  no  i)art  nor  lot  in  the  matter:  they  might  as  well  baptize 
the  devil  as  a  reprobate  for  whom  Christ  never  died,  and  who  is 
therefore  incapable  of  salvation.  Yet  they  baptize  all  the  chil- 
dren of  believers,  though  they  know  that  according  to  the 
*' horrible  decree  "  many  of  them  are  damned  from  their  mother's 
womb. 

Some  say  they  baptize  all  children,  though  tliey  believe  that 
only  the  elect  will  be  regenerated  in  baptism — perhaps  not  alto- 
gether even  then,  but  owXy  potentially  regenerated  in  the  sacra- 
ment— with  a  charitable  hope  that  they  are  all  elect.  This  can 
hardly  be  called  self-delusion;  they  do  not  "charitably  hope" 
any  such  thing.  They  know  that  many  whom  they  baptize  will 
grow  up  in  sin,  continue  in  sin,  and  be  damned;  and  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  decree  of  election  and  reprobation,  it  cannot  be 
otherwise.  On  our  principles  there  is  no  impropriety  in  baptiz- 
ing all  children,  because  all  are  alike  entitled  to  baptism,  and  to 
all  are  promised  the  blessings  which  it  symbolizes,  while  none 
are  actually  regenerated  in  the  ordinance. 

Some  Anglicans,  who  repudiate  predestination,  and  who  can- 
not but  admit  that  there  is  no  perceptible  difference  between  the 
children  of  pedobaptists  and  those  of  antipedobaptists,  similarly 
circumstanced,  think  that  they  untie' the  knot  by  making  regen- 
eration a  spiritual  change,  not  a  moral  change.  Thus  the  House 
of  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States,  who  put  forth  this  episcopal  decision  with  apparent  sat- 
isfaction and  great  confidence.  But  what  is  spiritual  regenera- 
tion? If  regeneration  is  not  understood  in  the  ritual  sense,  as 
a  mere  change  of  relation,  initiation  into  the  visible  Church, 


374 


Baptism, 


the  being  "  born  of  water  " — a  meaning  which  the  word  will  bear, 
but  a  sense  in  which  it  is  not  used  in  the  article,  which  speaks 
of  baptism  as  a  sign  of  regeneration,  not  regeneration  itself — 
then  it  must  denote  a  moral  change.  Indeed,  Bishop  White,  the 
father  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  expressly  says  that 
regeneration,  the  new  birth,  in  the  formularies  is  to  be  under- 
stood in  the  sense  we  bave  assigned  it.  The  phrases,  "  member 
of  Christ,"  "child  of  God,"  and  "inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  must  be  understood  in  the  same  sense  as  in  the  Script- 
ures. There  can  be  but  two  senses,  as  the  Church,  the  kingdom 
of  God,  must  either  be  the  outward  and  visible,  or  the  inward  and 
invisible.  Baptism  makes  us  Christians  in  the  former  sense; 
spiritual  regeneration  makes  us  Christians  in  the  latter  sense; 
and  if  this  is  not  a  moral  change,  what  is  it?  It  takes  place 
in  the  realm  of  the  soul — intellect,  sensibilities,  and  will;  it 
raises  from  the  death  of  sin  to  the  life  of  righteousness.  "  That 
which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  "Whosoever  is  born  of 
Gcod  doth  not  commit  sin;  for  his  seed  remaineth  in  him:  and 
he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is  born  of  God.  In  this  the  chil- 
dren of  God  are  manifest,  and  the  children  of  the  devil ;  whoso- 
ever doeth  not  righteousness  is  not  of  God."  (1  John  iii.  9, 10.) 
"Every  one  that  loveth  is  born  of  God,  and  knoweth  God." 
(1  John  iv.  7.)  "Whatsoever  is  born  of  God  overcometh  the 
world:  and  this  is  the  victory  that  overcometh  the  v/orld,  even 
our  faith."  (1  John  v.  4)  This  is  spiritual  regeneration;  this 
is  the  new  birth — the  birth  of  the  Spirit,  of  which  the  birth  of 
water  is  the  symbol.  It  is  a  pitiful  trifling  with  the  solemn  sub- 
ject to  say  that  infants  are  spiritually  regenerated,  but  not  mor- 
ally changed,  in  baptism. 

The  hopelessness  of  all  explanation  and  defense  of  baptismal 
regeneration  is  nowhere  so  apj^arent  as  in  the  elaborate  discus- 
sion of  this  article  by  Bishop  Browne.  It  is  humiliating  to  see 
learning  and  talent  so  prodigally  wasted.    He  says: 

Though  it  be  true  that  infants  can,  at  the  time  of  their  baptism,  oppose  no  obstacle 
lest  they  should  receive  pardon  and  grace;  and  though,  therefore,  in  case  of  their 
death  before  actual  sin,  Ave  believe  in  the  certainty  of  their  salvation;  yet  we 
must  bear  in  mind  that  the  pardon  of  sin  and  the  aid  of  the  Spirit  assured  (and 
therefore  surely  given)  at  baptism,  will  not  have  produced  an  entire  change  of 
their  nature,  eradicating  the  propensity  to  sin,  and  even  creating  a  sanctified 
heart.  The  grace  of  the  Spirit,  we  may  believe,  will,  as  the  reason  opens  and  tlie 
will  develops,  plead  with  their  spirits,  prompt  them  to  good  and  warn  them  from 


Definition  and  Significance  of  Baptism.  375 


evil,  and,  if  not  resisted,  will  doubtless  lead  them  daily  onward  in  progressive 
holiness.  But  the  power,  too,  to  resist,  which  they  did  not  possess  in  infancy, 
will  daily  increase  with  their  increasing  reason  and  activity,  and  their  actual  and 
internal  sand ificat ion  will  result  only  from  an  obedient  yielding  to  the  grace  of  the 
Sanctifier,  and  will  be  utterly  abortive  if,  through  sinful  propensities  and  sinful 
indulgence  of  tliem,  that  grace  be  stifled,  disregarded,  or  abused.  Thus,  though 
we  may  not  define  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  vouchsafed  in  infant  baptism  to  be  a 
"  mere  potential  principle,"  and,  until  it  be  stirred  up,  "dormant  and  inactive;" 
yet  we  may  define  it  so  as  to  understand  that  its  active  operations  are  only  to  be 
expected  when  the  dawning  reason  and  rising  will  themselves  become  active  and 
intelligent;  and  that  any  thing  like  a  real  moral  renovation  of  disposition  and 
character  can  only  be  looked  for  where  the  adolescent  will  does  not  resist  and 
quench  the  gracious  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  but  suffers  itself  to  be  molded 
and  quickened  unto  a  state  of  subjection  to  the  good  pleasure  of  the  Lord  and  of 
likeness  to  the  character  of  Christ. 

There  is  a  jumble  of  contradictions  and  ambiguities  worthy 
of  "the  greatest  of  uninspired  divines."  Augustin  himself 
could  scarcely  exceed  this.  All  baptized  infants  are  "born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,"  but  then  they  are  only  born  of  water, 
not  of  the  Spirit!  All  baptized  infants,  as  they  lay  no  bar  in  the 
way,  and  all  baptized  adults  who  interpose  no  bar,  experience 
"a  death  unto  sin  and  a  new  birth  unto  righteousness:"  they 
are  "regenerated  with  the  Holy  Spirit."  But  then  no  infant  is 
really  thus  regenerated  or  experiences  this  new  birth,  nor  can 
he  realize  this  "actual  and  internal  sanctification "  until  "the 
adolescent  will  sniffers  itself  to  be  molded  and  quickened  into  a 
state  of  subjection  to  the  good  pleasure  of  the  Lord,  and  of  like- 
ness to  the  character  of  Christ,"  by  "  the  gracious  influences  of 
the  Spirit  of  God."  These  are  palpable  contradictions.  As  the 
common  adage  goes,  he  runs  with  the  hare,  and  holds  with  the 
hound. 

AVhat  the  men  of  this  school  call  the  grace  of  baptism,  im- 
parted to  infants,  is  what  we  call  preventing  grace,  which  is  im- 
parted to  every  child  of  man  as  soon  as  he  comes  into  the  world, 
baptized  or  not  baptized.  To  this  we  are  indebted  for  the  sus- 
ceptibility of  good  impressions;  the  capacity  of  choosing  the 
good  and  refusing  the  evil  as  soon  as  our  powers  unfold;  for  all 
the  pleasing,  winning  ways  of  infancy,  which  could  have  no  ex- 
istence if  we  did  not  come  into  the  world  on  the  basis  of  the 
atonement,  sustaining  a  relation  to  the  Second  Adam  as  well  as 
to  the  first,  encompassed  and  influenced  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
as  a  blessed  atmosphere  of  spiritual  life,  as  his  name  denotes, 


376 


Baptism. 


surrounds  us  from  our  very  birth,  operating  upon  us  by  liis 
gracious,  mysterious  power,  fitting  us  for  heaven  if  we  die  in 
infancy,  or  for  a  life  of  holiness  on  earth,  if  in  after  years  we 
concur  with  his  preventing,  regenerating,  and  sanctifying  grace. 

That  all  this  is  signified  in  baptism  we  admit;  for,  as  the  arti- 
cle says,  baptism  is  "  the  sign  of  regeneration,"  and  therefore  as 
all  redeemed  by  Christ  are  through  him  entitled  to  the  "  thing 
signified,"  none  of  them  should  be  excluded  from  the  "thing 
signifying." 

Baptism,  as  Augastin,  Calvin,  and  others  very  well  say,  is  per- 
formed once  for  all,  but  it  lasts  through  life.  It  pledges  God,  it 
pledges  us,  for  all  time:  the  former  to  bestow  all  needful  grace, 
the  latter  to  use  the  grace  so  freely  given.  The  privileges  and 
obligations  of  baptism,  therefore,  are  secured  to  us  and  bound 
upon  us  for  our  whole  life,  and  are  to  be  realized  and  discharged 
as  soon  and  as  long  as  we  are  capable  of  realizing  and  discharg- 
ing them.  In  this  light  there  is  no  difficulty  wliatever  in  such 
passages  as  John  iii.  5;  Titus  iii.  5;  Eom.  vi.  3,  4.  Paul  says: 
"Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  are  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death?  therefore  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  death ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised 
up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also 
should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  Here  the  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  of  Christ  constitute  the  great  archetype  which  we 
are  to  follow.  As  he  died  on  the  cross  for  sin,  so  we  are  to  die 
to  sin — which  in  Scripture  style  denotes  separation  from  it;  as 
he  was  buried  in  the  tomb,  so  we  are  to  be  buried — as  completely 
and  obviously  separated  from  sin  as  the  corpse  is  separated  from 
the  world  when  it  is  laid  in  the  grave;  as  Christ  rose  triumphant 
from  the  dead,  so  we  are  to  be  raised  to  newness  of  life.  There 
is  no  necessity  of  pressing  the  metaphors  any  farther;  this  is 
their  manifest  import.  All  this  is  signified  in  baptism,  which 
is  furthermore  "a  means  whereby  we  receive  the  same,  and  a 
pledge  to  assure  us  thereof."  Our  baptism  binds  us  to  these 
moral  changes,  and  by  introducing  us  into  the  visible  Church, 
and  the  use  of  all  other  means  of  grace,  very  materially  promotes 
their  realization.  But,  as  we  have  shown,  the  great  initial  change 
which  we  call  regeneration  may  be  realized  before  baptism,  as 
in  the  case  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends;  or  after  baptism,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  pentecostal  converts;  or  without  baptism,  as  in 


Definition  and  Signijficance  of  Baptism, 


the  case  of  the  thief  on  the  cross,  and  thousands  of  other  pen- 
itent believers  who  were  never  baptized. 

§  8.  The  Mode  of  Baptism. 

The  article  says  nothing  directly  about  the  mode  of  baptism, 
as  the  catholic  Church  (with  the  exception  of  a  small  fragment) 
recognizes  the  validity  of  baptism,  whether  the  subject  be  ap- 
plied to  the  water,  as  in  immersion,  or  the  water  to  the  sub- 
ject, as  in  sprinkling  or  affusion.  But  as  baptism  is  a  "sign 
of  regeneration,"  which  is  metaphorically  set  forth  as  accom- 
plished by  pouring,  sprinkling,  and  the  like,  the  latter  mode 
seems  best  adapted  to  the  end  in  view.  {Cf.  Isa.  xliv.  3;  Ezek. 
xxxvi.  25,  26;  Acts  i.;  ii.;  x.  44-48;  xi.  15,  18;  et  al.) 

The  word  i^a—iXo)^  in  Hellenistic  Greek,  denotes  v^ishing  or  pu- 
rification, by  whatever  mode  it  is  effected.  Affusion  seems  pref- 
erable in  baptism,  as  it  best  represents  the  thing  signified,  the 
outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  more  convenient  and  less 
hazardous  than  immersion;  and  it  seems  to  have  been  the  mode 
by  which  John  the  Baptist  (as  represented  in  pictures  in  the  cata- 
combs nearly  or  quite  as  ancient  as  the  times  of  the  apostles) 
and  the  apostles  administered  baptism.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how 
it  could  have  been  otherwise  performed  in  the  case  of  the  mul- 
titudes that  were  baptized  by  John,  and  the  three  thousand  bap- 
tized by  the  apostles  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost;  or  Saul,  or  Lydia 
and  the  Philippian  jailer,  and  their  families;  or  even  the  Ethi- 
opian eunuch,  who  seems  to  have  been  surprised  to  find  any  water 
in  the  desert.  The  prepositions  rendered  "into"  and  "out  of  " 
might  have  been  better  rendered  unto  and  from,  "  They  went 
down  both  unto  the  water,  and  came  -op  from  the  water."  It  seems 
they  stepped  down  from  the  chariot  to  a  spring  by  the  road-side, 
and  Philip  poured  water  upon  his  convert,  thereby  symbolizing 
and  sealing  the  sanctifying  grace  of  the  Spirit,  which  was  already 
poured  aut  upon  him.  As  in  every  other  case,  it  was  not  "  regen- 
eration, or  the  new  birth,"  but  a  sign  of  it,  a  signiim  significans 
and  a  signiim  confirmans,  as  it  guarantees  the  sanctification 
Avhich  it  represents. 

[Dr.  Summers  is  thus  brief  in  his  treatment  of  the  mode  of 
baptism  for  several  reasons:  (1)  because,  as  noted  above,  the 
topic  is  not  directly  introduced  in  the  article ;  (2)  because  Meth- 
odism has  produced  an  abundant  literature  on  the  subject,  easily 


378 


Baptism, 


accessible;  and  (3)  because  lie  himself  has  exhaustively  dis- 
cussed the  question  in  his  treatise  on  Baptism,  chap,  v.,  pp.  78- 
123,  which  the  student  will  do  well  to  consult.  But  in  a  work 
like  the  present,  which  aims  at  the  completeness  of  systematic  ex- 
position, it  seems  desirable  that  the  omission  should  be  supplied. 
Accordingly  there  is  appended  so  much  of  the  excellent  argument 
of  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  as  is  based  upon  the  New  Testament  usage 
of  /?a-rw  and  fia-z'Xu)  and  their  cognates.  This  is  the  more  in 
place,  as  the  bulky  and  costly  "Systematic  Theology"  of  Dr. 
Hodge  is  not  likely  to  obtain  an  extensive  circulation  in  other 
communions  than  his  own.  This  learned  Presbyterian  divine 
says: 

The  word  pd—etv  is  used  four  times  in  the  ^^e^v  Testament,  in  no  one  of  wliich 
does  it  express  tile  idea  of  entire  immersion.  In  Luke  xvi.  24,  "  That  he  may- 
dip  {t^aipi])  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water."  The  finger,  when  dipped  in  water,  is 
not  submerged.  When  placed  Iiorizontally  on  the  water,  and  slightly  depressed, 
it  retains  more  of  the  moisture  than  if  plunged  perpendicularly  into  it.  John  xiii. 
2G  speaks  twice  of  dipping  the  sop  {(id^pag  and  kf^i^dipac).  But  a  morsel  held  in 
the  fingers  is  only  partially  immersed.  In  Rev.  xix.  13  the  words  'nepiliep.rjjjLhoq 
iuciTLov  (3Ei3aujLitvov  aiuart  obviously  mean  "clothed  with  a  vesture  staiiied  or  dyed 
with  blood.  The  allusion  is  probably  to  Isa.  Ixiii.  1  ff.:  "  Who  is  this  that  Com- 
eth from  Edom,  with  dyed  garments  from  Bozrah?  .  .  .  AVherefore  art  thou 
red  in  thine  apparel,  and  thy  garments  like  him  that  treadeth  in  the  wine-fat?  I 
have  trodden  the  wine-press  alone;  ,  .  .  and  their  blood  shall  be  sprinkled 
upon  my  garments,  and  I  will  stain  all  my  raiment."  In  this  case,  therefore,  the 
baptism  was  by  sprinkling.  BaTTTi^o  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  about  eighty 
times,  I3d~ria/m  some  twenty  times,  and  (3a7rTi(T/.i6g  four  times. 

As  every  one  admits  that  baptism  may  be  effected  by  immersion,  and  as  the 
purifications  under  the  Old  Testament  (called  by  the  Apostle,  Heb.  ix.  10,  in 
Greek,  "diverse  baptisms")  were  effected  by  immersion,  affusion,  and  sprinkling, 
it  would  not  be  surprising  if  in  some  of  these  numerous  passages  the  baptism 
spoken  of  necessarily  implied  immersion.  It  so  happens,  or  it  has  been  so  ordered 
however,  that  there  is  no  such  passage  in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
places  in  which  these  words  occur  may  be  arranged  in  the  following  classes:  (1) 
Those  in  which,  taken  by  themselves,  the  presumption  is  in  favor  of  immersion; 
(2)  those  in  which  the  idea  of  immersion  is  necessarily  excluded;  (3)  those  which 
in  themselves  are  not  decisive,  but  where  the  presumption  is  altogether  in  favor 
of  affusion, 

1.  To  the  first  class  belong  those  passages  which  speak  of  the  persons  baptized 
going  into  (elg)  the  water,  and  "coming  up  out  of  the  water."  (Matt.  iii.  16;  Acts 
viii.  38,  39.)  Such  passages,  however,  must  be  isolated  in  order  to  create  a  pre- 
sumption in  favor  of  immersion.  According  to  ancient  accounts,  the  common 
way  of  baptizing  was  for  the  person  to  step  into  water,  when  water  was  poured 
on  his  head,  and  then  he  came  up  out  of  the  water,  not  in  the  least  incommoded 
by  dripping  garments.    And  when  we  remember  that  it  is  said  concerning  John, 


Definition  and  Significance  of  Baptism. 


379 


that  "there  went  oat  to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round 
about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins"  (Matt, 
iii.  5,  6),  it  seems  piiysically  impossible  that  he  should  have  immersed  all  this 
multitude.  When  all  the  circumstances  are  taken  into  view,  the  presumption  in 
favor  of  immersion,  even  in  this  class  of  passages,  disappears. 

2.  The  second  class  of  passages,  those  from  which  the  idea  of  immersion  is  ex- 
cluded, includes  all  those  wiiicli  relate  to  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit 
is  frequently  said  to  be  poured  out  on  men;  but  men  are  never  said  to  be  dipped 
or  immersed  into  the  Holy  Spirit.  Such  an  idea  is  altogether  incongruous. 
AVhen,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  men  are  baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  is  so  often 
done,  the  reference  must  be  to  effusion,  or  affusion  of  the  Spirit  by  which  the 
soul  is  cleansed  from  sin.  As  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  person,  and  not  a  mere  influ- 
ence or  force,  the  preposition  iv  used  in  this  connection  (Matt.  iii.  11;  Mark  i.  8; 
John  i.  33;  Acts  i.  5;  xi.  16;  1  Cor.  xii.  13)  must  have  its  instrumental  force. 
Tlie  work  performed  in  us  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  baptism.  As  Avater  in  the 
hands  of  John  was  the  purifying  medium  for  the  body,  so  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  sent 
or  given  by  Jesus  Christ,  purifies  the  soul.  Some  of  the  modern  commentators 
are  such  purists  that  they  are  unwilling  to  allow  of  the  slightest  departure  from 
classic  usage  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament.  They  speak  as  though  the  sa- 
cred writers  were  Greek  grammarians,  instead  of,  as  was  in  most  cases  the  fact,  un- 
lettered men  writing  in  what  to  them  was  a  foreign  language.  Thus,  because  the 
particle  'iva  in  classic  Greek  has  always  a  telle  force,  they  deny  that  it  is  ever  used 
ecbatically  in  the  New  Testament,  even  in  such  cases  as  Luke  xxii.  30:  "I  ajipoint 
unto  you  a  kingdom,  .  .  .  in  order  that  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my  table." 
John  vi.  7 :  "  Two  hundred  pennyworth  of  bread  is  not  sufficient  for  them,  in  order 
ihat  every  one  of  them  may  have  a  little."  Kom.  xi.  11^-  "Have  they  stumbled 
with  the  desif/n  that  they  should  fall?"  1  Cor.  xiv.  13:  "Let  him  that  speaketh  in 
an  unknown  tongue  pray  in  order  that  he  may  interpret,"  etc.  Thus,  also,  because 
the  words  niarevo)^  -rvLariQ^  aind  TrtGrdq  in  tlie  classics  are  rarely  found  in  construction 
with  the  preposition  they  give  the  most  unnatural  interpretation  to  many  pas- 
sages in  order  to  avoid  admitting  that  construction  in  the  New  Testament.  Tliis 
is  done  in  the  face  of  such  passages  as  Mark  i.  15,  TriGTevere  iv  r(S  Evayye?J(j).  Gal. 
iii.  26:  "Ye  are  all  the  children  of  God,  Sid  Tijg  Triareuc  h  XpiarcS  'Itjctov."  Eph. 
i.  15:  "After  I  heard  of  your  manv  kv  rcJ  Kvpiip  'Ir^ffov/'  and  many  others  of  like 
kind.  In'like  manner,  because  the  instrumental  force  of  h  is  rare  in  the  classics,  it 
is  avoided  as  much  as  possible  in  the  Scripture.  Baptism  h  7rveL\uaTt,  instead  of 
being  understood  as  meaning  a  baptism  by  or  witli  the  Spirit,  is  made  to  mean 
"in  the  sphere  of  the  Spirit,"  and  baptism  h  nvpi,  baptism  "  in  the  sphere  of  fire." 
What  this  means  it  would  be  difficult  for  most  of  those  for  whom  the  Bible  is  in- 
tended to  understand.  The  baptism  of  John  and  that  of  Christ  are  contrasted. 
The  one  baptized  with  water;  the  other  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  Acts  i.  5  it  is 
said.  "John  truly  baptized  with  water  {vdari,  the  simple  instrumental  dative); 
but  ye  shall  be  baptized  {hv  Tlvevfiarc  dyiu)  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days 
lience."  As  to  baptize  vSan  cannot  mean  to  immerse  in  water,  so  neither  can  bap- 
tizing ev  T(J  Uvevjuari  mean  immersing  in  the  Spirit.  The  fact  is  j3a~-'i^eiv  does 
not  express  any  particular  mode  of  action.  As  to  dye  expresses  any  kind  of  ac- 
tion by  which  an  object  is  colored;  to  bury,  any  kind  of  action  by  which  an  ob- 
ject is  hidden  and  protected ;  so  to  baptize  expresses  any  act  by  which  a  person 


380 


Baptism, 


or  thing  is  brought  into  the  state  of  being  wet,  purified,  or  even  stupefied,  as  by 
opium  or  wine. 

Another  passage  in  wliich  this  word  occurs,  where  the  idea  of  immersion  is  pre- 
duded,  is  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2:  "All  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed 
through  the  sea;  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea." 
The  people  went  through  the  sea  dry  shod.  As  far  as  known  not  a  drop  of  water 
touched  them.  The  cloud  referred  to  was  doubtless  the  pillar  of  cloud  by  day 
and  the  pillar  of  fire  by  night  which  guided  the  people  through  the  wilderness. 
The  simple  and  generally  accepted  meaning  of  the  passage  is,  that  as  a  man  is 
brought  by  Christian  baptism  into  the  number  of  the  professed  and  avowed  disci- 
ples of  Christ,  so  the  Hebrews  were  brought  by  the  supernatural  manifestations 
of  divine  power  specified  into  the  relation  of  disciples  and  followers  of  Moses. 
There  is  no  allusion  to  immersion,  affusion,  or  sprinkling  in  the  case. 

Another  passage  belonging  to  this  class  is  Mark  vii.  4:  "When  they  come 
from  the  market,  except  they  wash  {^anTiatJUTai),  they  eat  not.  And  many  other 
tilings  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  washing  of  cups,  and 
pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables  {kTuvcjv,  couches)."  To  maintain  that  beds  or 
couches  were  immersed  is  a  mere  act  of  desperation.*  Baptism  means  here,  as 
it  does  everywhere  when  used  of  a  religious  rite,  symbolical  purification  by  water, 
without  the  slightest  reference  to  the  mode  in  which  that  purification  was  ef- 
fected. 

3.  The  third  class  of  passages  includes  all  those  in  which  the  idea  of  immer- 
sion, though  not  absolutely  precluded,  is  to  the  last  degree  improbable.  The  late 
Dr.  Edward  Robinson,  than  whom  there  is  no  higher  authority  on  all  that  relates 
to  the  topography  and  physical  geography  of  Palestine  and  the  habits  of  its  in- 
habitants, so  far  as  they  are  determined  by  the  nature  of  the  country,  says:  (1) 
"The  idea  of  private  baths  in  families  in  Jerusalem  and  Palestine  generally  is 
excluded."  (2)  "In  Acts  ii.  41  tliree  thousand  persons  are  said  to  have  been  bap- 
tized at  Jerusalem  apparently  in  one  day  at  the  season  of  Pentecost  in  June;  and 
in  Acts  iv.  4  the  same  rite  is  necessarily  implied  in  respect  to  five  thousand 
more.  Against  the  idea  of  full  immersion  in  these  cases  there  lies  a  difficulty,  ap- 
parently insuperable,  in  the  scarcity  of  water.  There  is  in  summer  no  running 
stream  in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem,  except  the  mere  rill  of  Siloam  a  few  rods  in 
length;  and  the  city  is  and  was  supplied  with  water  from  its  cisterns  and  public 
reservoirs.  From  neither  of  these  sources  could  a  supply  have  been  well  obtained 
for  the  immersion  of  eight  thousand  persons.  The  same  scarcity  of  water  forbade 
the  use  of  private  Ijaths  as  a  general  custom;  and  thus  also  further  precludes  the 
idea  of  bathing"  in  such  passages  as  Luke  xi.  38;  Mark  vii.  2-8.  He  confirms 
his  conclusion  by  further  remarking,  (3)  "In  the  earliest  Latin  versions  of  the 
Kew  Testament,  as,  for  example,  the  Itala,  which  Augustin  regarded  as  the  best 

*It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  koX  kXi.vo}v  is  omitted  by  Tischendorf,  Westcott  and 
Hort,  and  the  Revised  Version,  though  it  is  retained  by  Tregelles,  Weiss,  and  in  the  mar- 
gin of  the  Revised  Version.  It  is  a  little  singular  that  a  single  verse,  Mark  vii.  4,  should 
contain  two  various  readings  both  of  which  have  a  material  bearing  on  the  controversy 
about  the  mode  of  baptism.  These  "  tables  "  or  "  couches,"  which  liave  done  yeoman  serv- 
ice in  many  a  debate,  will  have  to  be  given  tip.  The  copyists  of  New  Testament  MSS., 
however,  were  impartial  in  their  distribution  of  favors  to  this  generation,  and  the  other 
variation  points  strongly  in  the  other  direction.  This  will  be  considered  in  a  subsequent 
note— T. 


Definition  and  Significance  of  Baptism, 


381 


of  all,  which  goes  back  apparently  to  the  second  century  and  to  usage  connected 
with  the  apostolic  age,  the  Greek  verb,  jSanTi^u^  is  uniformly  given  in  the  Latin 
form,  '  baptizo,'  and  is  never  translated  by  '  immergo,'  or  any  like  word,  showing 
that  there  was  something  in  the  rite  of  baptism  to  which  the  latter  did  not  corre- 
spond." (4)  **  The  baptismal  fonts  still  found  among  the  ruins  of  the  most  ancient 
Greek  churches  in  Palestine,  as  at  Tekoa  and  Gophna,  and  going  back  apparently 
to  very  early  times,  are  not  large  enough  to  admit  of  the  baptism  of  adult  persons 
by  immersion,  and  were  obviously  never  intended  for  that  use." 

It  is,  therefore,  to  the  last  degree  improbable  that  the  thousands  mentioned  in 
the  early  chapters  of  Acts  were  baptized  by  immersion.  The  same  improbability 
exists  as  to  the  case  of  the  centurion  in  Ctesarea  and  the  jailer  at  Philippi.  With 
regard  to  the  former,  Peter  said,  "Can  any  man  forbid  water?"  which  naturally 
implies  that  the  water  was  to  be  brought  to  Cornelius,  and  not  he  be  taken  to  the 
water.  As  to  the  jailer,  it  is  said  (Acts  xvi.  33)  that  he  and  all  his  were  baptized 
witiiin  the  prison,  as  the  narrative  clearly  implies,  at  midnight.  There  is  the 
same  improbability  against  the  assumption  that  the  eunuch,  mentioned  in  Acts 
viii.  27-38,  was  immersed.  He  was  traveling  through  a  desert  part  of  the 
country  toward  Gaza,  when  Philip  joined  him,  "And  as  they  went  on  their  way 
they  came  unto  a  certain  water  (erri  n  vdup^  to  some  water)."  There  is  no  known 
stream  in  that  region  of  sufficient  depth  to  allow  of  the  immersion  of  a  man.  It 
is  possible,  indeed,  that  there  might  liave  been  a  reservoir  or  tank  in  tiiat  neigh- 
borhood. But  that  is  not  a  fact  to  be  assumed  without  evidence  and  against  prob- 
ability. It  is  said  they  "went  down  both  into  the  water,"  and  came  "up  out  of 
the  water."  But  that  might  be  said,  if  the  water  were  not  deep  enough  to  cover 
their  ankles. 

The  presumption  is  still  stronger  against  immersion  in  the  case  mentioned  in 
Mark  vii.  4.  It  is  there  said  of  "  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,"  tliat  "when 
they,  come  from  the  market,  except  they  baptize  themselves  {eav  /u?^  (SarrTiauvrai) 
they  eat  not."  Let  it  be  here  considered:  (1)  That  private  baths  were  in  Jeru- 
salem very  rare,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case.  (2)  That  what  is  said  is  not  said 
merely  of  men  of  wealth  and  rank  who  might  be  supposed  to  have  conveniences 
and  luxuries  which  the  common  people  could  not  command.  It  is  said  of  the 
"Pharisees,"  a  large  class,  and  not  only  of  that  class,  but  of  "all  the  Jews."  It 
is  well-nigh  incredible,  under  such  circumstances,  that  "all  the  Jews"  should  im- 
merse themselves  every  time  they  come  from  the  ayopd — i,  e,  "a  place  of  public 
resort  in  towns  and  cities;  any  open  place  where  the  people  came  together  either 
for  business  or  to  sit  and  converse.  In  Oriental  cities  such  open  places  were  at 
the  inside  of  the  gates;  and  here  public  business  was  transacted,  and  tribunals 
held,  as  also  markets."  That  all  the  Jews  immersed  themselves  every  time  they 
came  from  such  a  place  of  public  resort  is  very  hard  to  believe,  considering  that 
the  facilities  for  such  immersion  were  not  at  their  command.  (3)  The  words 
baptize  and  wash  are  interchanged  in  this  whole  connection  in  such  a  way  as  to 
show  that,  in  the  mind  of  the  writer,  they  were  synonymous  expressions.  The 
Pharisees  complained  that  the  disciples  ate  with  unwashen  {aviTTToi^)  hands;  for 
they  eat  not  unless  they  wash  (vLtpiovrai)  their  hands;  and  when  they  come  from 
the  market  they  do  not  eat  unless  they  wash  {^arrTiouvTat);  and  they  hold  to  the 
washing  [(iaTrrianovg-)  of  cups,  and  pots,  of  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables  or  couches. 


382 


Baptisnu 


To  baptize  the  hands  was  to  wash  the  hands,  and  the  usual  mode  of  ablution  in 
the  East  is  by  pouring  water  on  the  hands  (see  2  Kings  iii.  11).* 

It  is  notorious  tliat  the  various  ablutions  prescribed  by  the  Mosaic  la\f  were 

♦There  Is  :i  remarkable  and,  as  regards  the  baptismal  controversy,  extremely  impor- 
tant various  reading  in  Mark  vii.  4.  The  text  critics  have  simply  noted  it,  with  tlie  au- 
thorities on  which  it  rests,  while  the  commentators  generally  eeem  to  have  overlooked  it, 
and  nobody,  apparently,  has  attached  any  importance  to  it.  Even  Westcott  and  Hortj 
who  incorporate  the  new-or  rather  the  old— reading  in  their  text,  give  no  di>cuesion  of 
it.  Dr.  Hodge  above,  and  theological  writers  generally,  appear  to  be  ignorant  of  tlie  ex- 
istence of  the  various  reading  in  question.  Instead  of  the  common  reading  ^aTrnVtovTai. 
both  of  the  fourth  century  Uncial  MSS.,  Sinaiticm  «nd  Vatwanus  (the  oldest  extant  MSS.  of 
the  New  Testament),  followed  by  som^  cursives  of  no  great  importance,  read  pauria-iovTai. 
The  authority  for  this  latter  reading  is  sufficient  to  induce  its  adoption  by  Volkmar.  and 
also  by  Weiss,  who  uses  it  in  his  edition  of  Meyer,  that  greatest  of  New  Testament  com- 
mentators having  failed  to  take  any  notice  of  the  variation.  As  already  noted,  Westcott 
and  Hort,  doubtless  the  greatest  authorities  in  England  on  questions  of  this  nature,  insert 
pavTiaoivrai  as  tlie  correct  reading  in  their  critical  edition  of  the  New  Testament;  and  the 
Kevi>ed  Version,  after  translating  "except  they  wash  themselves,"  adds  in  the  margin. 
Some  ancient  authorities  read  sprinkle  themselves.'^  If  this  reading  be  received  as  correct, 
and  the  authority  for  it,  as  shown  above,  is  by  no  means  insignificant,  we  should  have  to 
read  instead  of "  except  they  baptize  themselves  "(; which  is  the  literal  rendering  of  the 
common  text)  as  follows,  "  except  they  sprinkle  themselves."  Moreover  the  verb  yi\j/(ov^ 
rat  closely  precedes  to  express  the  action  of  washing  the  hands;  and  the  actions  in- 
dicated both  by  this  verb  and  by  pavTicruiVTai  are  virtually  classed  by  Mark  as  "  baptisms  " 
Avhen  he  goes  on  to  say  that  the  Pharisees  and  Jews  practice  many  other  "  baptisms  " 
(/3a7rri(rju,oi;5;  in  our  versions,  both  Authorized  and  Kevised.  translated  washings).  Thus 
^an-TKr/xds  is  a  term  sufficiently  wide  to  include,  not  only  the  action  expressed  by  the  cog- 
nate verb  ^airricrbiVTaL,  but  also  the  actions  expressed  by  the  verbs  vixj/uvrai  and  pavriawvrai.. 
Therefore,  if  pavTiVtovrai  be  the  correct  reading,  we  have, in  the  original  Scriptures,  as  they 
left  the  hand  of  the  Avriters,  a  distinct  and  quite  unmistakable  recognition  of  sprinkling  as 
baptism.  This  is  perhaps  as  near  nn  approximalion  to  demonstration  as  we  can  hope  to 
reach  in  questions  of  this  sort,  and,  if  the  amended  reading  be  accepted  aa  genuine,  the 
passage  ought  to  prove  the  end  of  controversy. 

But  even  if  this  most  ancient  reading  be  rejected  the  various  reading  is  in  evidence 
that  in  the  middle  of  tlie  fourth  century  PanTL^oi  and  pai/rt^w  were  synonymous,  or  capable 
of  being  used  interchangeably  in  many  connections.  There  are  three  supposable  cases,  any 
one  of  which  will  account  for  the  origin  of  the  various  reading  if  it  be  rejected  as  spuri- 
ons.  (1)  'The  copyist  who  wrote  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  may  have  been  led  to  substitute 
*'  sprinkle  "  for  "  baptize,"  through  their  similarity  either  of  sound  or  of  form  in  the  Greek. 
This  could  hardly  have  taken  place  unless  the  words  covered  common  gi'ound,  and  par- 
ticularly were  capable  of  being  used  interchangeably  in  the  context  of  Mark  vii.  4.  (2)  It 
is  possible  that  the  copyist,  on  grounds  satisfactoi-y  to  himself,  may  have  taken  the  re- 
sponsilnlity  of  substituting  "  sprinkle  "  for  "  baptize  "  in  the  text.  In  this  case,  it  Avould 
seem  that  he  could  hardly  have  regarded  the  words  as  differing  widely  in  meaning.  (3) 
An  earlier  copyist  may  have  put "  sprinkle  "  in  the  margin  as  an  explanation  of  "  baptize  " 
in  the  text,  and  the  copyist  who  wrote  the  Sinaitic  MS.,  mistaking  the  explanatory  gloss 
for  a  correction  of  the  text,  may  have  substituted  the  marginal  reading  for  the  text  be- 
fore him.  In  this  case  we  have  written  evidence  that  before  tlie  middle  of  the  fourth  cent- 
ury "baptize"  and  "sprinkle"  were  regarded  as  synonymous. 

It  may  be -worthy  of  remark  that  ^avrt^w  occurs  four  times  in  the  New  Testament:  Ileb. 
ix.  13, 10,  21  and  x.  22.  In  every  case  it  is  translated  sprinkle.  This,  it  would  seem,  was 
tlie  usual  method  of  perfonning  the  Levitical  baptisms. 

The  conclusion  of  the  foregoing  discussion  is  this:  (1)  If  the  reading  pamivtavrai.  be  the 
correct  one,  and  text  critics  of  the  highest  ability  and  authority  adopt  it,  this  passage,  it 
■would  appear,  ought  to  be  decisive  of  the  controversy  on  the  mode  of  ba])tism.  (2)  If  the 
reading  be  spurious,  the  weight  of  evidence  derivable  from  it,  which  is  very  consider- 
able, is  on  the  side  of  those  who  regard  baptism  as  validly  performed  by  affusion  or  sprink- 
ling.—T. 


Definition  and  Significance  of  Baptism, 


383 


effected  sometimes  by  immersion,  sometimes  by  aflfusion,  and  sometimes  by  sprink- 
ling. And  it  is  no  less  true  that  all  these  modes  of  purification  are  called  by  the 
sacred  writers  6id(j)opoi  (SaTZTLO/ioi^  as  in  Heb.  ix.  10  and  Mark  vii.  4. 

So  far,  therefore,  as  the  New  Testament  is  concerned,  there  is  not  a  single  case 
where  baptism  necessarily  implies  immersion;  there  are  many  cases  in  which  that 
meaning  is  entirely  inadmissible,  and  many  more  in  which  it  is  in  the  higlie^t 
degree  improbable.  If  immersion  were  indispensable,  why  was  not  the  word 
Kuradbu  used  to  express  the  command?  If  sprinkling  were  exclusively  intended, 
why  was  not  palvu  or  pavrll^o)  used?  It  is  simply  because  the  mode  is  nothing 
and  the  idea  every  thing,  that  a  word  was  chosen  which  includes  all  the  modes  in 
which  water  can  be  applied  as  the  means  of  purification.  Such  a  word  is  /5a;rr/ui'w, 
for  wliich  there  is  no  legitimate  substitute,  and  tlierefore  that  word  has  been  re- 
tained by  all  the  Churches  of  Christendom,  even  by  the  Baptists  themselves.*] 


Systematic  Theology,''  Vol.  Ill  ,  pp.  581-536. 


CHAPTER  II. 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 
§  1.  Introductory. 

The  article  closes  with  this  seutence:  "  The  baptism  of  young 
children  is  to  be  retained  in  the  Church."  This  statement  is 
remarkable  for  its  conciseness,  simplicity,  and  suggestiveness. 

There  was  no  need  for  the  pleonastic  clause  in  the  original  arti- 
cle, "  in  any  wise,"  omnino;  nor  for  the  adjunct,  "  as  most  agree- 
able to  the  institution  of  Christ."  It  should  indeed,,  by  all 
means,  be  retained  in  the  Church,  and  for  the  reason  that  it  is 
"  most  agreeable  to  the  institution  of  Christ."  But  there  are 
other  reasons  for  its  retention. 

It  should  be  retained  because  it  is  in  the  Church,  and  has  al- 
ways been  there.  Dr.  AVall  says  that  Peter  of  Bruys,  a  Frenchman 
wlio  flourished  about  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century,  whose 
followers  were  called  Petrobrusiaus,  was  the  first  Antipedobaptist 
teacher  who  had  a  regular  congregation.  But  Mr.  Faber  shows 
good  reasons  for  doubting  the  statement  that  they  rejected  infant 
baptism.  (See  "  Summers  on  Baptism,"  page  40.)  The  Anabap- 
tists in  Germany  arose  about  the  time  of  the  Pteformation.  It 
does  not  appear  that  there  was  any  congregation  of  Anabaptists 
in  England  till  the  year  1640.  The  Antij^edobaptists  claim  that 
the  Waldenses  repudiated  infant  baptism ;  but  the  Waldensian 
confessions,  histories,  and  traditions  directly  disprove  the  as- 
sertion. 

§  2.  Scriptural  Proofs  of  Infant  Baptism. 

That  "the  baptism  of  young  children"  was  practiced  by  the 
Church  from  the  beginning  is  easily  shown.  It  is  not  said, 
indeed,  in  so  many  words  in  the  New  Testament  that  the  apos- 
tles baptized  young  children.  There  was  no  occasion  to  say  this 
any  more  than  there  was  occasion  to  say  that  they  administered 
the  Lord's-supper  to  women.  But  both  are  implied  in  what  is 
said. 

When  the  apostle  baptized  Stephanas  and  Lydia  he  baptized 
also  their  families.    The  term  ol/.o-:  means  fcimibj,  as  distinct 
(384) 


Infant  Baptism. 


3S5 


from  ol/.ia,  household.  It  is  so  rendered  by  Bloomfield,  in  1  Cor. 
i.  16,  who  cites  a  passage  from  Ignatius,  in  which  the  term  is 
used  in  that,  sensv^,  as  under  it  the  wife  and  children  are  specific- 
ally embraced.  The  apostle  notes  the  distinction  between  these 
two  terms.  Thus  he  baptized  the  oikos,  the  fain  il//,  of  Stephanas; 
but  he  speaks  of  the  oikia,  the  houselioJd  of  Stephanas,  as  addict- 
ing themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints,  that  is,  performing 
the  duties  of  hospitality  toward  them.  Such  services  would  not, 
of  course,  be  restricted  to  Stephanas,  with  his  wife  and  children, 
the  oikos  of  Stephanas,  but  would  be  rendered  also  by  the  serv- 
ants of  the  family,  in  which  case  the  word  oilcia  is  proper  to  be 
used,  and  it  is  used  accordingly.    (1  Cor.  xvi.  15.) 

This  plain  view  of  the  subject  explodes  the  notion  that  all  the 
members  of  the  family  of  Stephanas  baptized  by  St.  Paul  must 
have  been  adults,  because,  forsooth,  six  or  eight  years  afterward, 
they  are  spoken  of  as  addicted  to  the  ministi-y  of  the  saints.  It 
is  not  said  that  this  service  was  rendered  by  the  ofhos^  the  faniih/, 
of  Stephanas;  nor  is  it  said  that  the  oikia,  the  household  of  Ste- 
phanas was  baptized  by  the  apostle.  This  distinction  ought  to 
be  noted  in  the  translation.  In  like  manner,  it  was  not  the  oikia, 
the  household  of  Lydia,  but  her  oil.os,  \\qv  famibj,  that  was  bap- 
tized; and  this  embraced  only  her  children.  It  is  preposterous 
to  say  that  her  oikos  was  her  "journeymen  dyers,"  and  that  they 
were  "the  brethren"  spoken  of  (Acts  xvi.  40),  Avhom  Paul  and 
Silas  comforted  after  their  imprisonment!  Nay,  these  brethren 
were  neither  servants  nor  sons  of  Lydia:  they  were  j^robably  no 
other  than  Luke  and  Timothy,  who  sojourned  at  Lydia's  house 
during  the  imprisonment  of  Paul  and  Silas,  and  who  were  left 
by  them  at  Philippi.    {Cf.  Acts  xx.  G.) 

When  the  Philippian  jailer  was  baptized,  "all  his"  were  bap- 
tized with  him.  This  was  exactly  in  accordance  with  the  Jewish 
custom.  AVhen  they  received  proselytes  by  circumcision  they 
administered  the  rite  of  initiation  to  the  male  children  of  the 
family;  and  in  their  proselyte  baptisms  they  included  the  chil- 
dren with  their  believing  parents.  This  is  a  dictate  of  nature, 
as  well  as  a  provision  of  the  old  dispensation.  It  is  very  bold  to 
say  that  there  were  no  infants  in  any  of  the  numerous  families 
that  were  baptized  by  the  apostles.  The  families  baptized  were 
more  likely  to  comprehend  children  than  adults,  for  the  latter 
would  not  have  been  baptized  except  on  their  personal  profession 
23  Vol.  II. 


386 


Baptism. 


of  faith,  whereas  the  children  would  be  baptized  on  the  respon- 
sibility of  their  parents.  Hence  the  frequency  of  family  bap- 
tisms. 

This  was  the  apostolic  rule,  as  it  is  that  of  modern  missiona- 
ries among  the  heathen.  The  apostles  would  very  naturally  so 
construe  the  Saviour's  command:  "Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  (Mat.  xxviii.  19, 
20.)  Suppose  a  similar  command  had  been  given  in  reference 
to  the  Jewish  religion,  how  would  it  have  been  understood? 
Teach  all  nations — or  rather,  iinOriTeoaarz,  proselyte,  make  disci- 
ples of  all  nations — circumcising  them  and  instructing  them  in 
the  Hebrew  faith.  "Would  the  rite  have  been  restricted  to  adults, 
on  the  ground  that  children  are  not  specified?  Eather,  would 
it  not  have  been  extended  to  children,  on  the  ground  that  they 
are  not  excluded?  And  is  not  this  the  most  obvious  way  to 
accomplish  the  end  in  view?  If  we  pledge  our  children  to  Chris- 
tianity from  their  very  birth,  by  bringing  them  under  the  bond 
of  the  covenant,  and  teach  them  the  Saviour's  commands  as 
soon  as  they  can  lisp  his  name,  will  they  not  be  more  likely  to 
become  his  disciples  than  if  they  are  abandoned  as  profane  per- 
sons, unfit  for  a  name  and  a  place  among  his  followers?  The 
idea  of  such  abandonment  is  repulsive  to  our  natural  sentiments, 
and  utterly  contrary  to  the  genius  of  our  benevolent  and  holy 
religion. 

§  3.  Testimony  cf  Antiquity. 
« 

The  fathers  claimed  apostolical  authority  for  the  baptism  of 
infants,  and  baptized  them  accordingly. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  about  forty  years  after  the  death  of 
St.  John,  says:  "Many  persons  among  us,  sixty  or  seventy  years 
old,  of  both  sexes,  who  were  made  disciples  to  Christ  in  their  in- 
fancy, i/.  TZfuduyy^  continue  uncorrupted."  He  uses  the  very  term 
which  our  Lord  uses  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19 — limOr^rzoOrina-r.  and  as 
there  is  no  other  way  to  make  infants  disciples  of  Christ  but  by 
baptism,  which  Justin  expressly  calls  "the  circumcision  of 
Christ,"  and  as  those  of  whom  he  speaks  were  baptized,  A.D.  70 
or  80,  they  were  baptized  by  the  apostles,  or  by  their  contempo- 
raries. In  "Questions  and  Answers  to  the  Orthodox,"  ascribed 
to  Justin,  occurs  this  passage,  in  keeping  with  the  foregoing: 


Infant  Baptism. 


387 


"The  children — rd  Bpicpri — of  the  good  are  deemed  worthy  of  bap- 
tism, through  the  faith  of  those  who  bring  them  to  be  baptized." 

To  the  same  effect  is  the  testimony  of  Irenseus,  Bishop  of  Ly- 
ons and  disciple  of  Polycarp,  who  was  intimately  acquainted 
with  St.  John.  Iren^eus  was  born  about  the  time  of  the  death 
of  that  apostle.  He  says:  "Christ  came  to  save  all  persons  by 
himself — all,  I  say,  who  by  him  are  born  again  to  God — infants 
and  little  ones,  and  children,  and  youths,  and  elder  persons — 
reuascuntur  in  Deiim  :  infantes,  et  parvulos,  et  pueros^  et  jiivenes,  et 
seniores.^^  AVe  scarcely  need  state  that  the  Fathers  constantly 
spoke  of  baptism  as  recjeneration,  or  at  least  included  the  former 
in  their  idea  of  the  latter.  Irenseus  himself  says:  "When  Christ 
gave  to  his  apostles  the  commission  of  regenerating  unto  God — 
regenerationis  in  Deum — he  said  to  them:  *  Go  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them.'  "  Yet  he  affirms  that  children  of  all  ages 
were  regenerated  or  baptized. 

Tertullian  w^as  born  about  sixty  years  after  the  death  of  St. 
John.  Embracing  the  strange  notion  that  baptism  washes  away 
all  previous  sins,  this  learned  but  visionary  Father  recommended 
a  deviation  from  the  established  practice  of  the  Church  by  a  de- 
lay of  baptism,  unless  the  life  of  the  child  were  in  danger.  He 
says:  "According  to  every  one's  condition  and  disposition,  and 
also  their  age,  the  delaying  of  baptism  is  more  profitable,  especial- 
ly in  the  case  of  little  children."  For  reasons  equally  valid,  he 
says,  unmaT-ried  persons,  who  are  likely  to  be  visited  with  temp- 
tation— both  those  who  were  never  married  and  those  who  are 
in  a  widowed  state — and  other  persons  occupied  with  the  cares 
of  life,  ought  to  defer  their  baptism.  He  adduces  a  variety  of 
arguments,  sufficiently  silly,  to  induce  the  postponement  of  bap- 
tism in  the  case  of  infants;'"  but  the  one  great  conclusive  ar- 

*  One  of  those  arguments  is  worthy  of  note,  as  it  contains  the  earliest  reference 
to  sponsors  in  baptism:  "Quid  enim  necesse  est  sponsores  etiam  periculo  ingcrif  quia 
et  ipsi  per  morialitatem  dcstituere  proinissiones  suas  posmnf,  et  proventu  make  indolis 
falli.'*  "  Why  bring  the  sponsors  into  danger?  because  they  may  fail  of  their  prom- 
ises by  death,  and  they  may  be  deceived  by  the  child's  proving  wicked."  On  this 
passage  the  learned  annotator  on  Tertullian,  Prior  Philip,  says:  " Puerorum  sus- 
ceptores  qui  Greets  avaSnxoi,  quasi  fidejussores  sunt.  Eorum  officium  est  infantem  in- 
struere,  el  acZ  ben(i  vivendum  adhortari  et  hinc  sensum  aucioris  edkcere  potes."  De  Bap- 
tismo:  c.  xviii.  "The  undertakers  of  children  are  a  kind  of  sureties.  Their  office 
is  to  train  the  children  j^nd  exhort  them  to  live  well,  and  from  this  you  may  learn 
Tertulllan's  meaning."  For  any  thing  that  appears  in  Tertullian's  reference  to 
sponsors  in  baptism ;  they  may  have  been  the  parents  of  the  children,  as  they  were 


388 


Baptism. 


gument  lie  does  not  so  much  as  insinuate — to  wit,  that  infant 
baptism  was  a  novelty  in  the  Church  and  had  not  been  practiced 
by  tbe  apostles.  There  is  but  one  way  to  account  for  this  omis- 
sion: Tertullian  could  not  deny  a  fact  with  which  everybody  was 
acquainted.  Indeed,  notwithstanding  his  opposition  to  infant 
baptism  on  the  grounds  specified,  he  never  questioned  the  right 
of  infants  to  the  ordinance,  but  allowed  them  to  be  baptised 
when  their  lives  were  in  danger,  and  that  too  by  a  layman  wlien 
a  minister  could  not  be  j^rocured.  It  should  be  remarked,  more- 
over, that  his  recommendation  of  delay  in  ordinary  cases  was 
not  universally  respected,  nor  permanently  followed,  though  for 
a  century  or  two  it  wrought  considerable  mischief  in  the  Church. 
His  novel  and  superstitious  speculations,  however,  afford  tri- 
umphant proof  of  the  apostolic  practice  of  infant  baptism. 

Origen  was  born  at  Alexandria,  A.D.  185.  His  father,  grand- 
father, and  great-grandfather  were  Christians;  it  is  likely  the 
Origen  family  was  brought  into  the  Church  by  St.  Mark,  and 
the  elder  branches  were  for  many  years  contemporary  with  the 
"  faithful  men  "  whom  that  evangelist  placed  over  the  Alexan- 
drian Church.  Origen  himself  was  a  very  learned  man,  and  he 
had  lived  in  Greece,  Kome,  Cappadocia,  and  Arabia,  and  for  a 
long  time  in  Syria  and  Palestine.  Surely  if  any  one  knew  what 
was  apostolic  doctrine  on  this  subject,  Origen  must  have  known. 
Yet  he  says  expressly,  speaking  of  original  sin:  "  For  this  cause 
the  Church  received  from  the  apostles  an  order  to  give  baptism 
even  to  infants:  Pro  hoc  ecdesia  ah  ojwstolis  traditioneui  siiscepit 
etiam  j)arvuUs  haptismum  dare."  He  adds:  "For  they  to  whom 
the  divine  masteries  were  committed  knew  that  there  is  in  all 
persons  the  natural  pollution  oi  sin,  which  must  be  done  away 
by  water  and  the  Spirit."  The  force  of  this  testimony  is  seen 
in  the  attempts  of  Antipedobaptists  to  evade  it  on  the  ground 
that  it  occurs  in  a  Latin  translation  by  Eufinus,  who  may  have 
manufactured  the  passage.  A  bright  idea!  Eufinus,  who  had 
secret  doubts  on  the  subject  of  original  sin,  foisted  into  Origen's 
work  the  strongest  argument  in  its  favor!  What  Eufinus  did 
for  Origen  in  translating  his  Commentary  on  Eomans  we  sup- 
pose Jerome  did  in  translating  his  Homily  on  Luke,  though  that 

in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  and  as  tliey  always  ought  to  he;  no  others  shoiild  he 
allowed  as  substitutes  of  the  parents,  except  when  the  latter  are  dead  or  otherwise 
unavailable. 


Infant  Baptism. 


389 


learned  father  protests  lie  "  changed  nothing,  but  expressed  ev- 
ery thing  as  it  was  in  the  original."  In  this  Homily  Origen 
says:  "Infants  are  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins.  And  be- 
cause by  the  sacrament  of  baptism  onr  native  pollution  is  taken 
away,  therefore  infants  may  be  baptized."  He  uses  this  argu- 
ment for  original  sin,  in  his  Homily  on  Leviticus:  "Baptism  is 
given  to  infants,  according  to  the  practice  of  the  Church,  when, 
if  there  were  nothing  in  infants  that  needed  forgiveness  and 
mercy,  the  grace  of  baptism  would  be  superfluous  to  them."  In 
another  place  he  propounds  a  question  concerning  the  guardian 
angels  of  children:  "When  were  the  angels  appointed  to  them? 
at  their  birth  or  at  their  baptism?"  These,  of  course,  are  all 
very  bad  translations;  so  bad,  that  if  they  be  permitted  to  pasS; 
and  Origen  be  considered  a  competent  witness  in  regard  to  a 
plain  matter  of  fact,  the  conclusion  is  certain:  the  apostles  and 
their  successors  baptized  infants. 

In  the  year  253  a  Council  of  Bishops  was  held  in  Carthage. 
This  assembly  was  called  upon  by  Fidus,  a  country  bishop,  to 
decide  whether  or  not  infants  might  be  baptized  before  they 
were  eight  days  old.  The  sentence  of  the  Council  was  commu- 
nicated to  Fidus  by  Cyprian.    He  says: 

Whereas  you  judge  that  the  rule  of  circumcision  is  to  be  observed  so  that  none 
should  be  baptized  and  sanctified  before  the  eighth  day  after  he  is  born,  we  are 
all  in  our  assembly  of  a  contrary  opinion.  It  is  not  for  us  to  hinder  any  person 
from  baptism  and  the  grace  of  God,  who  is  merciful,  and  kind,  and  affectionate  %o 
all;  which  rule,  as  it  is  to  govern  universally,  so  we  think  it  more  especially  to 
be  observed  in  reference  to  infants  and  persons  newly  born. 

It  seems  the  quasi  antipedobaptism  of  Tertullian  had  but  lit- 
tle influcDce  with  the  Council,  the  members  of  which,  sixty-six 
in  number,  must  have  known  what  was  the  practice  of  the  apos- 
tles, as  they  lived  so  near  their  times. 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  styled  the  Christian  Isocrates,  because  of 
his  eloquence,  was  born  A.D.  330.  He  opposed  the  postpone- 
ment of  baptism,  and  urged  the  administration  of  the  ordinance 
to  infants.  "  For,"  says  he,  "  it  is  better  they  be  sanctified  with- 
out their  own  sense  of  it  than  that  they  should  be  unsealed  and 
uninitiated,  and  cur  reason  for  this  is  circumcision,  which  was 
performed  on  the  eighth  day,  and  was  a  typical  seal,  and  was 
practiced  on  those  who  had  no  reason."  Unless  there  was  dan- 
ger, however,  he  recommended  the  postponement  of  their  bap- 
tism until  they  were  three  years  old.    Gregory,  by  the  way, 


390 


Baptism. 


speaks  Avitli  commendation  of  the  baptism  of  Basil  in  his  in- 
fancy. 

Ambrose  speaks  of  the  baptism  of  infants,  and  refers  the  cus- 
tom to  the  apostles'  times.  Chrysostom  also  speaks  of  baptism 
as  Christian  circumcision,  and  as  conferred  on  infants.  So  also 
does  Jerome,  and  indeed  nearly  all  the  Fathers  of  that  age;  but 
it  is  useless  to  give  additional  citations. 

§  4.  Proof  Afforded  by  the  Pelagian  Controversy. 

We  must  not,  however,  pass  over  the  proof  of  the  apostolic,  or 
rather  divine,  origin  of  baptism  which  is  furnished  in  the  Pela- 
gian controversy.  By  a  singular  coincidence,  Pelagius  and  his 
illustrious  opponent  were  born  on  the  same  day,  Nov.  13,  354. 
Pelagius,  having  denied  original  sin,  was  pressed  by  his  antago- 
nists with  the  argument  in  favor  of  that  doctrine  based  upon  the 
baptism  of  infants.    Augustin  says: 

The  whole  Churcli  lias  of  old  constantly  held  that  baptized  infants  do  obtain 
remission  of  original  sin  by  the  baptism  of  Christ.  For  my  part,  I  do  not  remem- 
ber that  I  ever  heard  any  other  thing  from  any  Christians  that  received  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  neither  from  such  as  were  in  the  Catholic  Church,  nor  yet 
from  such  as  belonged  to  any  sect  or  schism.  I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever  read 
otherwise,  in  any  writer  that  I  could  ever  find  treating  of  these  matters,  that  fol- 
lowed the  canonical  Scriptures,  or  did  mean  or  pretend  so  to  do. 

Pelagius,  in  defending  himself  in  his  letter  to  Innocent,  says: 
"Men  slander  me  as  if  I  denied  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to 
infants.  I  never  heard  even  an  impious  heretic  say  they  ought 
not  to  be  baptized.  For  who  is  so  ignorant  of  the  evangelical 
writings  as  to  have  such  a  thought?  Who  can  be  so  impious  as 
to  hinder  infants  from  being  baptized?  " 

His  friend  Celestius  affirms:  "We  acknowledge  infants  ought 
to  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  according  to  the  rule  of 
the  universal  Church,  and  according  to  the  sentence  of  the  gos- 
pel." 

These  men,  be  it  remembered,  were  the  most  learned  men  of 
the  age.  Pelagius  was  born  in  Britain  and  educated  at  the  cel- 
ebrated seminary  at  Bangor,  and  he  afterward  traveled  through 
the  principal  countries  of  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa.  So  also 
did  Celestius;  and  yet  they  declared  that  they  never  heard  of  any 
one  that  denied  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism.  They  would 
gladly  have  denied  it,  had  there  been  any  possibility  of  doing 
so,  as  it  constituted  the  basis  of  a  formidable  argument  against 
their  peculiar  notions;  but  there  was  the  stubborn  fact,  known 


Infant  Baptism. 


391 


and  read  of  all  men,  and  the  Pelagians  could  not  deny  it.  Yet 
if  infant  baptism  had  been  foisted  into  the  Church  after  the 
death  of  the  apostles,  they  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  it. 
The  novelty,  like  the  paschal,  prelatical,  and  pontifical  innova- 
tions, would  have  occasioned  some  controversy,  and  the  time  of 
its  introduction  would  certainly  have  been  known  by  somebody 
in  the  first  two  centuries  after  the  apostles.  But  not  the  slight- 
est diff'erence  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism — except  the  va- 
gary of  Tertullian — is  noted  in  any  of  the  writings  of  the  Fathers; 
though  every  variation  from  apostolic  rule  is  set  down  in  the 
list  of  heresies  compiled  by  Irenseus,  Epiphanius,  Philastrius, 
Augustin,  and  Theodoret. 

§  5.  Protestant  Use  of  Patristic  Testimony. 

Let  it  be  observed,  we  do  not  adduce  "  the  unanimous  consent 
of  the  Fathers,"  as  authority  for  the  practice  of  infant  baptism, 
as  "we  have  a  more  sure  word  of  prophecy;"  nor  do  we  indorse 
their  opinions  concerning  the  virtue  of  baptism;  we  have  noth- 
ing to  do  with  their  illogical  arguments  or  their  erratic  specula- 
tions. We  cite  the  Fathers  as  witnesses  to  a  fact,  concerning 
which  they  were  every  way  competent  to  give  testimony.  That 
testimony  absolutely  demonstrates  the  apostolic,  or  rather  di- 
vine, origin  of  infant  baptism. 

As  young  children  had  always  been  admitted  to  the  Church 
by  baptism,  it  was  as  little  as  the  Reformers  could  say  tjiat  the 
custom  should  be  retained  in  the  Church.  What  right  had  they 
•to  discontinue  this  practice?  Suppose  they  could  not  give  any 
other  reason  for  it  than  that  it  is  "  most  agreeable  with  the  in- 
stitution of  Christ,"  would  not  that  suffice?  Suppose  they  could 
not  discern  the  congruity  with  Christ's  institution,  that  would 
not  affect  their  duty.  They  found  infant  baptism  where  the 
apostles  left  it,  and  Avhere  the  Fathers  and  their  successors  re- 
tained it;  and  it  was  enough  for  them  to  say  "  it  is  to  be  retained 
in  the  Church,"  and  to  practice  it  accordingly,  which  they  did 
without  any  dissent,  except  by  the  Anabaptists,  and  the  Quakers 
who  came  after  them,  who  went  further  than  they,  as  they  neither 
retained  the  baptism  of  young  children  nor  of  adults.  But  that 
young  children  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism  has  been  often 
shown  by  numerous  considerations,  which  we  shall  proceed  to 
discuss  in  detail. 


392 


Baptism. 


§  6  Infants  Subjects  of  Redeeming  Grace,  Hence  of  Baptism. 

They  are  all  the  subjects  of  redeeming  grace,  and  they  do  not 
place  any  bar  to  the  blood-bought  privileges  of  the  g®spel  to 
exclude  themselves  from  participation  in  them. 

They  are  not  baptized  because  their  parents  are  believers  in 
Christ.  Their  right  to  the  ordinance  is  of  a  higher  investiture. 
•  They  claim  by  a  nobler  entail.  Dying  in  infancy,  they  enter 
heaven,  not  on  the  ground  of  their  Christian  descent — the  piety 
of  their  parents — but  because  of  their  personal  connection  with 
the  Second  Adam,  by  whose  righteousness  the  free  gift  is  come 
upon  them  unto  justification  of  life.  Upon  the  very  same  ba- 
sis are  they  admitted  to  membership  in  the  kingdom  of  grace 
and  to  baptism,  as  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Church  of  God. 
If  there  be  any  for  whom  Christ  did  not  die;  any  for  whom  he 
did  not  purchase  the  sanctifying  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  any 
whom  he  designed  and  decreed  never  to  save:  such  are  obviously 
ineligible  to  baptism,  which  is  the  exponent  of  those  great  ben- 
efits that  flow  from  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  But 
if  he  tasted  death  for  every  man;  if  the  free  gift  has  come  upon 
allvflio  are  involved  in  the  condemnation  of  the  pristine  offense: 
there  can  be  no  reason  to  justify  the  exclusion  of  any  from 
the  sign  and  seal  of  the  divine  mercy,  except  such  as  exclude 
themselves  by  their  obstinate  impenitency,  and  infants  are  not 

of:  that  number. 
♦> 

§  7.  Infants  Embraced  in  the  Gospel  Covenant. 

They  are  specifically  embraced  in  the  gospel  covenant. 

"When  that  covenant  was  made  with  Abraham,  his  children 
were  brought  under  its  provisions,  and  the  same  seal  that  was 
administered  to  him  was  administered  also  to  them;  including 
both  those  that  were  born  in  his  house  and  those  that  were  bought 
with  his  money.  They  were  all  alike  circumcised  in  token  of 
their  common  interest  in  tliat  covenant,  of  whicli  circumcision 
v/as  the  appointed  symbol.  That  covenant  is  still  in  force. 
"Know  ye  therefore,"  says  the  apostle,  "that  they  which  are  of 
faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham.  And  the  Script- 
ure, foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the  heathen  through 
faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying.  In  thee 
shall  all  nations  be  blessed.  So  then  they  which  be  of  faith 
are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham."  (Gal.  iii.)  To  say,  there- 
fore, that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  confined  exclusively  to 


Infmit  Baptism, 


393 


national  and  temporal  privileges  and  obligations  has  the  singu- 
lar infelicity  of  contradicting  the  apostle. 

Besides,  what  national  and  temporal  privileges  and  obligations 
were  confirmed  to  Ishmael  and  his  posterity  by  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  of  which  they  received  the  sign  and  seal?  Did  they, 
or  was  it  intended  that  they  should,  receive  any- inheritance  in 
the  promised  land?  Were  they  brought  thereby  under  the  bond 
of  the  Mosaic  covenant?  The  Israelites  were;  but  it  must  be 
remembered  that  "circumcision  is  not  of  Moses,  but  of  the 
fathers."  It  signed  and  sealed  a  covenant  which  was  made 
hundreds  of  years  before  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law  was  given. 
"And  this  I  say,"  observes  the  apostle,  "  that  the  covenant  that 
was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law  which  was  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  after  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should 
make  the  promise  of  none  effect.  For  if  the  inheritance  be  of 
the  law,  it  is  no  more  of  promise;  but  God  gave  it  to  Abraham 
by  promise."  Can  language  be  more  explicit,  more  determinate, 
than  this?  Does  not  St.  Paul  tell  us  plainly  that  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  is  substantially  and  essentially  identical  with  the  Chris- 
tian covenant?  And  if  children  were  embraced  in  the  provis- 
ions of  the  former,  what  but  a  divine  interdict  can  exclude  them 
from  the  provisions  of  the  latter?  And  no  such  interdict  has 
ever  been  given.  If,  therefore,  the  children  of  the  covenant  were 
admitted  to  its  symbolical  rite  under  the  old  dispensation,  why 
may  they  not  be  admitted  under  the  new?  Are  the  provisions 
of  the  latter  less  liberal,  less  extensive  than  those  of  the  former? 

§8.  Unity  of  the  Church  Under  all  Dispensations. 

We  do  not  know  how  any  unprejudiced  person  can  read  the 
Scriptures  without  seeing  that  the  Church  of  God  is  essentially 
one  and  the  same  under  every  dispensation. 

The  term  church,  h-xlriaLa^  in  the  New  Testament,  corresponds 
with  congrerjatioyi^  kahctl,  in  the  Old;  and  the  latter  is  frequently 
so  rendered  in  the  Septuagint,  which  sometimes  interchanges 
•  it  with  sijnagogne,  a  word  of  the  same  import.  St.  Stephen,  ac- 
cordingly, speaking  of  Moses,  says:  "  This  is  he  that  was  in  the 
Church  in  the  wilderness"  (Acts  vii.  45),  not  in  a  promiscuous 
assembly,  as  the  word  l/./lr^nia  sometimes  denotes,  but  a  regular 
ecclesiastical  organization,  called  by  St.  Paul  "  a  house,"  in 
which  Moses  acted  as  a  servant,  and  afterward  Christ  as  "  a 


394 


Baptism. 


Son,"  "whose  house,"  says  the  apostle,  "are  we."  (Heb.  iii.; 
cf.  Ps.  xxii.  12;  Ixx.  and  Heb.  ii.  12.) 

This  Church  is  often  spoken  of  under  the  notion  of  a  king- 
dom— "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  or,  as  Matthew  frequently  has  it, 
"  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  (Matt.  xx.  1-16;  xxii.  1-14.)  This 
Church,  or  kingdom,  our  Lord  told  the  Jews  should  be  taken 
from  them,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof. 
(Matt.  xxi.  43.)  Cf,  Matt.  viii.  11,  12,  where  the  Jews  are 
styled  "  the  children  of  the  kingdom,"  and,  because  of  their  dis- 
obedience, threatened  with  a  fearful  expulsion.  They  were  in 
possession  of  the  privileges  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  it  existed 
in  its  introductory  state,  and  they  had  a  pre-emption  right  to  the 
privileges  of  that  kingdom  in  its  perfected  state;  in  which  sense 
it  was  said  by  John  the  Baptist  and  by  Christ  to  be  nigh  at 
hand.  It  was  therefore  offered  first  to  them  by  our  Lord  him- 
self and  by  his  apostles,  as  Paul  and  Barnabas  said  to  the  Jews: 
"  It  was  necessary  that  the  word  of  God  should  first  have  been 
spoken  to  you;  but  seeing  ye  put  it  from  you,  and  judge  your- 
selves unworthy  of  everlasting  life,  lo,  w^e  turn  to  the  Gentiles." 
(Acts  xiii.  46.)    Thus  was  the  prediction  of  Christ  verified. 

The  Church  is  compared  by  St.  Paul  to  an  olive-tree,  which, 
planted  by  God  in  patriarchal  times,  continued  to  grow  through- 
out the  period  of  the  Jewish  dispensation ;  but  some  of  the  nat- 
ural branches,  being  unfruitful,  were  broken  off,  and  the  branches 
of  a  wild  olive-tree  w^ere,  "  contrary  to  nature,"  grafted  in  their 
place,  and  were  thus  made  to  "partake  of  the  root  and  fatness  of 
the  olive-tree."  Provision  is,  however,  made  on  a  prescribed 
contingency  for  the  "  natural  branches  "  to  "  be  grafted  into  their 
own  olive-tree,"  "  for  God  is  able  to  graft  them  in  again."  (Kom. 
xi. ;  cf.  Jer.  xi.  16. )  If  this  does  not  establish  the  essential  iden- 
tity of  the  Church  under  the  different  dispensations — no  matter 
to  what  circumstantial  changes  it  may  have  been  subjected — it 
is  not  possible  to  establish  any  point,  by  any  reasoning,  illustra- 
tion, or  authority.  Indeed,  it  does  it  so  fully,  so  forcibly,  so  ob- 
viously, as  to  forestall  all  objections,  and  to  preclude  all  argu- 
ment. 

This  great  truth  pervades  the  New  Testament,  particularly  the 
Pauline  Epistles,  being  frequently  brought  to  view  in  an  inci- 
dental, matter-of-course  manner,  and  not  as  a  point  concerning 
which  there  might  be  any  controversy.    Accordingly,  we  know 


Infant  Baptism, 


395 


of  no  controversy  on  this  subject  until  it  was  superinduced  by 
the  emergencies  of  the  Antipedobaptist  divines. 

§  9.  Baptism  Substituted  for  Circumcision  as  Rite  of 
Initiation. 

That  baptism  is  the  ordinance  of  initiation  into  the  Church, 
and  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  now,  as  circumcision  was 
formerly,  is  evident.  Thus  St.  Paul,  in  connection  with  the 
passages  we  have  cited  from  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  uses 
tliis  language:  "As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptizedinfo  Christ 
have  put  on  Christ.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is 
neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female;  but  ye 
are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye 
Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise."  And  so 
also  in  another  place:  "And  in  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised 
with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ: 
buried  with  him  in  baptism."    ( Col.  ii.  11,  12. ) 

Alluding  to  this  text,  Justin  Martyr  says:  "We  have  not  re- 
ceived that  circumcision  according  to  the  flesh,  but  that  circum- 
cision which  is  spiritual;  and,  moreover,  for  indeed  we  were 
sinners,  we  have  received  this  circumcision  in  baptism,  for  the 
purpose  of  God's  mercy;  and  it  is  enjoined  on  all  to  receive  it 
in  like  manner." 

Fidus  hesitated  to  baptize  children  before  the  eighth  day  after 
their  birth,  the  period  at  which  circumcision  was  administered. 
He  wrote  to  Cyprian  for  his  opinion,  and  that  Father  gave  the 
judgment  of  sixty-six  bishops  in  council,  that  infants  might  be 
baptized  before  the  eighth  day.  This  question  never  could  have 
been  raised  had  they  not  understood  that  baptism  has  taken  the 
place  of  circumcision. 

Chrysostom  says  emphatically,  *'  There  was  pain  and  trouble 
in  the  practice  of  Jewish  circumcision;  but  our  circumcision — 
I  mean  the  grace  of  baptism — gives  cure  without  pain;  and  this 
for  infants  as  well  as  men." 

Basil,  in  allusion  to  St.  Paul's  language,  says:  "  Dost  thou  put 
off  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the 
flesh,  which  is  done  in  baptism,  when  thou  hearest  our  Lord  say, 
'Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God? ' " 


396 


Baptism. 


As  external  circumcision  symbolizes  the  "  circumcision  of  the 
heart  in  the  spirit,"  so  baptism  symbolizes  the  same  great  act, 
the  moral  purification  of  the  soul.  Baptism,  being  a  less  rigor- 
ous rite  than  circumcision,  is  more  congenial  to  the  Christian 
economy  than  the  latter,  which  was  not  inappropriate  to  the 
earlier  and  less  benign  dispensations.  Nevertheless,  as  it  is  of 
the  same  mystical  import,  it  signs  and  seals  the  same  pi'omise  of 
mercy  and  pledge  of  obedience.  And  as  that  promise  extends  to 
our  children  as  well  as  to  us,  it  is  our  duty  to  do  all  in  our  power 
to  make  them  parties  to  the  covenant,  as  did  also  our  father 
Abraham.  "  For  the  promise,"  says  Peter,  is  unto  you  and  to 
your  children."  As  God  has  not  excluded  them  from  the  cove- 
nant, it  seems  a  daring  act  of  presumption  in  us  to  exclude  them 
from  the  sign  by  which  it  is  set  forth,  and  the  seal  by  which  it 
is  ratified. 

§  10.  Infant  Church-membership  Recognized  in  the  New 

Testament. 

The  membership  of  children  in  the  Christian  Church  is  for- 
mally recognized  in  the  New  Testament. 

"  They  brought  young  children  to  Christ,  that  he  should  touch 
them;  and  his  disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought  them.  And 
when  Jesus  saw  it,  he  was  much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them, 
Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not, 
for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child, 
he  shall  not  enter  therein.  And  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms, 
put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them."    (Mark  x.  13-16.) 

Let  it  be  observed  that  the  little  children,  ra  rzatdia,  of  Matthew 
and  Mark,  are  styled  [ir^icr^  in  Luke  (xviii.  15),  and  the  term 
fifii(f<>^  means  an  infant^  a  hahp,  or  suckling.  It  is  properly  used 
of  children  not  weaned.  The  Greek  authorities  say  that  the 
period  of  lactation  extended  to  four  years;  among  the  Jews,  it 
extended  to  three  years:  ^luring  this  time  the  child  was  called 
by  this  name,  hrepJios. 

The  children  that  were  brought  to  Christ  must  have  been  very 
young,  as  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them, 
and  blessed  them.  It  must  be  a  pressing  emergency  that  makes 
adults  of  these  infants.  But,  apart  from  all  hypercritical  anal- 
ysis or  torturing  of  the.  text,  can  any  unprejudiced  man  read 
this  passage,  and  yet  believe  that  Christ  intended  to  exclude 


Infant  Baptism. 


397 


children  from  membership  in  his  Church?  Those  to  whom  he 
spoke  knew  that  children  were  members  of  the  Jewish  Church, 
and  that  millions  of  infant  souls  have  been  admitted  into  the 
kino"dom  of  God  above;  and  could  they  imagine  that  the  Saviour 
would  ostracise  these  little  oues  from  the  Christian  Church, 
the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth?  Even  if  he  meant  to  say,  "Let 
the  children  come,  for  persons  like  them  are  to  be  members 
of  my  Church,"  this  does  not  exclude  the  little  ones  themselves: 
it  rather  includes  them,  especially  as  it  is  assigned  as  a  reason 
why  they  should  not  be  prevented  from  being  brought  to  him  to 
receive  his  blessing.  But  if  this  establishes  their  eligibility  to 
membership  in  the  Church,  it  confirms,  by  necessary  sequence, 
their  claim  to  baptism,  through  which  alone  they  can  be  admit- 
ted to  the  visible  kingdom  of  God. 

To  the  same  effect  is  the  language  of  St.  Paul:  "For  the  un- 
believing husband  is  sanctified  by,  or  to  the  Avife,  and  the  unbe- 
lieving wife  is  sanctified  by,  or  to  the  husband:  else  were  your 
children  unclean;  but  now  are  they  //o/y."    (1  Cor.  vii.  14.) 

This  can  not  mean  inherently  righteous,  for  none  are  holy  in 
this  sense  until  they  are  born  again. 

Nor  does  it  mean  lerjitiuiate,  as  Dr.  Gill  and  some  others,  in- 
cluding Albert  Barnes,  afiirm;  for  this  is  no  meaning  of  the 
word.  It  is  used  some  five  hundred  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  always  in  the  sense  of  sanctification — reputed,  rela- 
tive, or  real.  Besides,  the  matter  in  question  had  nothing  to  do 
with  legitimate  and  illegitimate  unions;  and  of  c'ourse  the  legit- 
imacy or  illegitimacy  of  their  offspring  has  no  place  in  the  ar- 
gument. 

Furthermore,  the  word  cannot  mean  persons  with  whom 
Christians  may  have  familiar  intercourse,  according  to  the  still 
more  novel  theory  of  Dr.  Dagg,  who,  by  the  way,  manifests  no 
small  ingenuity  in  its  construction  and  learning  in  its  defense. 
He  supposes  the  children  in  question  were  the  children  of  all 
the  Christians  in  the  Corinthian  Church — as  if  there  was  any 
parallel  between  the  case  of  believing  parents  living  with  their 
children  and  that  of  a  believing  husband  living  with  an  unbe- 
lieving wife,  or  a  believing  wife  with  an  unbelieving  husband. 
Against  the  latter  there  had  been  a  positive  law  of  divine  en- 
actment; against  the  former  there  never  had  been  any  law,  hu- 
man or  divine.    No  hypercritical  analysis  of  the  text,  or  correc- 


398 


Baptism. 


tion  of  the  translation,  can  make  it  appear  that  because  it  is 
lawful  for  believing  parents  to  live  with  their  children,  it  is 
lawful  for  a  believing  husband  or  wife  to  live  with  an  unbeliev- 
ing consort.  What  curious  logic!  We  venture  to  say,  neither 
Jewish  nor  Gentile  believers  would  be  satisfied  with  the  lawful- 
ness of  living  with  unbelieving  husbands  or  wives,  merely  be- 
cause Christian  parents  were  not  obliged  to  turn  their  children 
out-of-doors! 

We  do  not  think  Dr.  Dagg's  philological  criticisms  give  much 
support  to  his  cause.  As  to  the  change  of  address  from  the 
third  person  to  the  second — "  your  children  " — it  is  enough  to 
say  that  transitions  of  this  character  are  common  in  the  Script- 
ures, and  this  chapter  abounds  with  them.  The  same  parties 
are  spoken  of  and  spoken  to^  interchangeably,  a  dozen  times  in  a 
paragraph.  In  regard  to  the  subjunctive  rendering  of  the  in- 
dicative, ^(tt\  "tvere  unclean,"  grammarians  tell  us  that  the  in- 
dicative frequently  has  a  subjunctive  force,  particularly  in 
Hellenistic  Greek,  in  imitation  of  the  Hebrew,  which  has  no 
subjunctive  form — and  the  sense  requires  it  in  the  present  case."* 
Our  argument,  however,  has  not  much  concern  with  these  hair- 
splitting niceties. 

With  respect  to  the  alleged  identity  of  the  holiness  predicat- 
ed o'f  the  unbelieving  consort  and  that  of  the  children,  as  being 
fatal  to  the  common  interpretation  of  this  passage,  it  may  suffice 
to  say  that  there  is  an  identity,  but  there  is  also  a  diversity. 
There  are,  in  fact,  three  kinds  of  holiness  involved  in  the  prem- 
ises, corresponding  to  the  three  parties  involved:  the  first  is  a  real 
holiness,  appertaining  to  the  believing  husband  or  wife;  the 
second  is  a  relative  holiness,  appertaining  to  the  children,  in  viefw 
of  their  baptism ;  and  the  third  is  a  reputed  holiness,  appertaining 
to  the  unbelieving  husband  or  wife,  in  view  of  the  relation  sus- 
tained to  a  believing  consort.  A  family  thus  constituted  would 
be  considered  a  Christian  family,  whereas,  in  a  parallel  case 
among  the  Jews,  the  family  would  not  be  considered  a  Jewish 
family,  but  the  children  would  remain  heathens  like  the  heathen 
parent,  not  being  admitted  to  circumcision  until  the  latter  be- 
came a  proselyte,  or  until  they  became  old  enough  to  make  a 

*  Accordingly,  the  Vnljjate  reads,  "Alioquinfilii  vestriimmundi  esffent;"  and  Ter- 
tnllian:  "  Cetenvm  immundi  nascerentur.'*  De  Anima,  c.  xxxix.  Compare  1  Cor. 
iv.  6;  XV.  12,  35,  50;  Gal.  iv.  17;  and  see  MacKnight's  "Essays,"  iv.  9. 


Lifani  Baptism. 


899 


formal  renunciation  of  heathenism  for  themselves.  Such  mon- 
grel matrimonial  alliances  were  not  tolerated  by  the  Jewish  law, 
and  they  were  accordingly  dissolved  by  Ezra  and  others.  But 
Christianity  is  more  liberal  in  its  provisions.  AVhile,  on  the 
ground  of  expediency,  it  forbids  believers  to  be  "unequally 
yoked  together  with  unbelievers,"  yet  in  cases  where  such  un- 
ions subsist,  in  consequence  of  the  conversion  of  one  of  the 
parties,  it  does  not  exclude  their  children  from  its  pale.  Instead 
of  dealing  with  them  and  their  Christian  parent  as  heathens, 
because  of  the  heathenism  of  the  unbelieving  parent,  it  em- 
braces the  former  in  its  fold  as  cordially  as  if  the  latter  were 
also  a  Christian. 

The  term  liohj^  as  used  of  such  children,  does  not  therefore 
imply  that  they  were  morally  righteous,  or  lawfully  begotten, 
or  fit  for  parental  fellowship;  but  that  they  were  ceremonially 
clean  or  pure.  The  word  is  always  used  in  the  Septuagint  in 
this  sense,  as  the  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  kridosh. 

The  argument  is  briefly  this:  If  the  children  of  a  Christian 
parent,  the  husband  or  wife  of  a  heathen,  be  permitted  to  take 
rank  with  the  saints,  o'y.a,  that  is.  Christians,  or  members  of  the 
Church,  as  the  word  imports  in  the  New  Testament,  the  con- 
jugal relation  has  been  sanctified  to  a  Christian  husband  or  wife, 
so  circumstanced,  and  must  not  be  dissolved.  This,  as  the  con- 
text shows,  was  the  point  in  dispute  in  the  Corinthian  Church; 
but  it  could  not  have  been  settled  by  such  an  argument  as  this, 
had  not  the  Church-membership  of  children  been  an  admitted 
fact. 

We  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to  cite  authorities  in  sup- 
port of  this  construction  of  the  passage,  as  there  is  scarcely  a 
critic — excepting,  of  course,  the  Antipedobaptists,  who  have  rea- 
son enough  to  consider  it,  as  they  evidently  do,  a  crux  criticorum — 
who  does  not  think  that  it  refers  to  the  baptismal  consecration 
of  children.  So  Tertullian,  the  oldest  writer  on  the  subject, 
believed;  and  how  could  he  believe  otherwise,  when  he  knew 
that  the  term  holy  is  never  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to 
any  person  not  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Christ.* 

After  describing  the  idolatrous  rites  by  Avliich  the  Romans  consecrated  their 
children  to  their  deities,  TertuUian  says,  "  Hinc  enim  et  apostolus  ex  sanctifimto 
alterutro  sexu  sanctos  procreari  ait,  lam  ex  seminit  prrrrogativa,  quam  ex  institutionis  dis- 
ciplina.    Cetenan,  inquit,  immundi  naacerentur,  quasi  designates  tamen  sanciitati,  ac  per 


400 


Baptisnu 


The  apostle  evidently  considers  children  members  of  the 
Church,  and  gives  them  instruction  accordingly.  "  Children, 
obey  your  parents  in  the  Lord;  for  this  is  right."  (Eph.  vi.  1; 
Col.  iii.  20. )  Here  the  natural  duty  of  filial  obedience  rises  up 
into  the  importance  of  a  Christian  obligation;  the  phrase,  in  the 
Lord,  implying  a  recognition  of  divine  authority.  This  Epistle 
is  directed  to  the  Church  at  Ephesus,  and  in  closing  it,  according 
to  his  manner,  the  apostle  gives  instructions  of  a  practical  char- 
acter to  the  members  of  the  Church.  Among  them  were  wives 
and  husbands,  children  and  parents,  servants  and  masters;  and 
the  duties  belonging  to  those  several  relations  are  specified  and 
enforced  upon  a  Christian  basis.  Accordingly,  he  says:  "  Chil- 
dren,"—rd  r^xi/a,  those  of  you  who  are  children — "obey  your 
parents  in  the  Lord."  And  the  fathers  have  a  correspondent 
duty  imposed  upon  them — to  bi'ing  up  their  children  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  Does  not  this  clearly 
show  that  the  children,  as  well  as  the  parents,  were  members  of 
the.  household  of  faith,  and,  as  such,  must  have  been  introduced 
to  the  fellowship  of  the  Church  by  baptism,  as  the  Heaven- 
appointed  ordinance  of  initiation  ? 

§  11.  Errors  To  Be  Avoided. 

No  one  therefore  need  wonder  that  the  Apostles,  Fathers, 
Schoolmen,  Reformers,  "the  holy  Church  throughout  all  the 
world,"  in  all  its  branches,  except  a  small  fragment,  should  bap- 
tize young  children  as  well  as  adults.  Indeed,  it  seems  as  though 
the  baptism  of  the  former  should  be  looked  after,  if  any  differ- 
ence can  be  imagined,  with  greater  interest  than  that  of  the 
latter.    It  is  of  immense  imj)ortance  that  children  should  be 

hoc  etiam  saluH,  inieligi  vokns  fidelium  filiosP  "Hence,  the  apostle  says,  eitlier  par- 
ent being  sanctified,  the  offspring  are  holy,  as  well  by  the  privilege  of  descent 
as  by  the  discipline  of  education.  Otherwise,  he  says,  they  were  born  unclean, 
yet  they  are,  so  to  speak,  appointed  to  holiness,  and  by  that  also  to  be  saved." 
This  holiness  is  baptismal;  hence  he  adds:  "Unless  any  one  be  born  of  water  and 
of  the  Spirit  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  Godi—id  est,  non  erit  sanctus, 
that  is,  he  cannot  be  holy."  On  which  words  the  learned  Rigaltius  remarks: 
"Id  est,  Christianus.  Efenim  Christiani,  fratres,  fideles,  sancti.  Sanctos,  apostolus 
vocal  cos,  qui  non  sunt  /oris,  sive  extra  ecclesiam.  Sanctos  opponit  gentibus,  ethnicvi" — 
"that  is,  Christians.  For  saints  are  Christians,  brothers,  faithful  persons.  The 
apostle  calls  those  saints  who  are  not  without,  or  out  of,  the  Church.  He  con- 
trasts saints  with  Gentiles  or  heathens.  Vide  TerttUliani,  De  Aninm,  c.  xxxix., 
Works,  page  294,  Paris  folio  ed.,  1675. 


Infant  Baptism. 


401 


matriculated  as  soon  as  possible  in  the  school  o£  Christ,  and 
baptism  is  their  matriculation. 

Two  errors  are  to  be  avoided:  First,  to  attempt  the  training  of 
children  out  of  the  school.  They  ought  to  be  duly  entered  upon 
its  register,  personally  recognized  by  pastors  and  teachers,  who 
ought  to  assist  parents  in  bringing  them  up  in  the  nurture  and 
admonition  of  the  Lord,  from  their  very  birth;  for  then  their 
education  begins.  It  should  bo  regular,  aathoritative,  complete. 
The  pupils  should  know  their  teachers,  and  the  teacliers  their 
pupils.  Parents  should  be  instructed  .that  they  are  catechists  of 
the  Church,  and  their  children  catechumens  of  the  Church,  and 
their  instruction  should  proceed  on  this  basis.  When  old  enough 
the  young  disciples  should  be  brought  more  directly  under  the 
personal  oversight  and  tuition  of  pastors  and  teachers,  whose 
instruction  and  discipline  should  proceed  on  the  basis  of  the 
baptismal  vow. 

The  other  error  to  be  avoided  is  a  very  popular  and  a  very 
pernicious  one — viz.,  the  baptizing  of  young  children,  and  then 
suffering  them  to  grow  up  in  ignorance  and  sin,  and  to  stray 
from  the  fold,  just  as  if  the  mark  of  the  Good  Shepherd  had 
not  been  placed  upon  them.  This  makes  baptism,  as  Isaac  Tay- 
lor sarcastically  says,  "  a  five-minutes'  ceremony."  It  is  a  prof- 
anation of  the  holy  ordinance.  It  is  a  palpable  absurdity.  Ma- 
triculate children  as  scholars,  and  then  assign  them  no  teachers, 
give  them  no  instruction!  Put  the  shepherd's  mark  upon  the 
lambs,  and  open  the  door  of  the  fold,  and  send  them  forth  into 
the  mountains  to  be  devoured  by  beasts  of  prey!  Take  care  of 
the  sheep,  by  all  means,  but  never  mind  the  lambs;  let  them  take 
care  of  themselves!  What  a  cruel  farce  is  this!  If  the  Papists, 
with  their  opus  operatiim,  should  act  thus,  it  would  be  strange 
enough;  but  for  Protestants,  who  believe  that  the  sacraments 
inure  to  our  salvation  just  as  their  design  is  diligently  and  con- 
stantly carried  out  in  our  practice,  it  is  passing  strange  that  they 
should  be  so  derelict,  and  it  would  be  incredible  if  it  were  not 
every  day  before  our  eyes.  The  best  defense  of  the  baptism  of 
young  children  is  their  careful  training  on  the  basis  of  their 
baptism,  and  the  faithful  assumption  and  discharge  of  their 
baptismal  obligations  "when  they  come  to  age." 

I  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to  note  an  objection  to  the 
baptism  of  young  children  sometimes  urged — viz.,  that  when 
2b  Vol.  II. 


402  Baptism . 

 , — . —  — ^  —  -   ^ — . — . — .  t  .  —  . 

they  come  to  age  tliey  may  wish  to  receive  adult  baptism,  and  the 
Church  does  not  favor  the  repetition  of  this  sacrament.  As  there 
is  no  good  reason  for  their  repudiation  of  their  baptism  in  in- 
fancy, we  are  not  to  neglect  our  duty  to  them  because,  forsooth, 
they  may  embrace  erroneous  views  as  to  the  mode  and  subjects 
of  baptism.  They  may  turn  Quakers,  and  repudiate  baptism 
altogether;  or  infidels,  and  renounce  the  creed  of  their  baptism. 
We  are  not  to  make  provision  for  error,  but  rather  to  do  all  in 
our  power  to  fjreclude  their  embracing  of  it.  Believers  under 
the  former  dispensations  circumcised  their  children,  and  pledged 
them  to  observe  all  God's  commandments,  which  are  binding 
upon  all,  the  sacrament  being  the  solemn  recognition  of  the  ob- 
ligation. No  Jew  ever  declined  to  circumcise  his  child  because 
he  might  wish  adult  circumcision  in  mature  life.  He  was 
deemed  "a  son  of  the  law,"  as  Jews  expressed  it,  when  he  was 
old  enough  to  ratify  in  his  own  person  the  sacramental  contract. 

In  the  Discipline  adopted  at  the  organization  of  the  Meth- 
ethodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  in  1784,  there  was  this 
provision: 

Q.  46.  What  sliall  be  clone  -with  those  who  were  baptized  in  their  infancy, 
but  have  now  scruples  concerning  the  validity  of  infant  baptism?  A.  Remove 
their  scruples  by  argument^  if  ^ou  can;  if  not,  the  office  may  be  performed  by  im- 
mersion or  sprinkling,  as  the  person  desires. 

But  after  1786  this  clause  was  canceled  on  account  of  its 
incongruity  and  mischievous  tendency.  The  way  to  foster  error 
is  to  make  concessions  to  it.  Let  parents  be  urged  to  perform 
their  duty  to  their  children,  and  to  leave  the  result  to  them  and 
to  God. 

§  12.  Bishop  Marvin  on  Infant  Baptism  and  Parental 
Responsibility. 

[In  1872,  Bishop  Marvin  prepared  an  Introduction  for  a  pop- 
ular work  on  Infant  Baptism.  The  Bishop  took  occasion  to  give 
full  expression  to  his  mature  views,  which  are  here  transcribed 
as  a  fitting  conclusion  to  the  foregoing  exposition  of  the  Meth- 
odist doctrine  on  Infant  Baptism: 

There  are  two  extreme  views  with  respect  to  the  Church,  each  of  v/hich  is  false 
and  mischievous.  In  one  view,  the  Church  has  official  custody  of  the  grace  of 
God,  which  it  dispenses  by  authority,  through  sacramental  channels  of  communi- 
cation. In  the  other,  the  Church  is  made  nothing  of,  or  next  to  nothing.  Con- 
nection with  it  is  held  to  be  of  little  or  no  value.  Its  ordinances  and  means  of 
grace  are  slighted  as  nothing  worth. 


Infant  Baptism. 


403 


It  is  true,  Leyond  all  question,  that  a  man's  relations  with  his  Maker  are  to  be 
deterniined  by  himself.  He  can  confer  no  *•  power  of  attorney  "  upon  the  Church 
to  attend  to  the  business  of  salvation  for  him.  He  must  come  to  God  in  his  own 
person.  In  the  vital  process  of  repentance  and  faith,  and  in  the  mystery  of  the 
new  birth,  no  proxy  can  be  employed.  Yet  it  is  also  true  that  God  has  ordained 
in  the  Church  many  efficient  aids,  many  means  of  grace,  through  which  the  ear- 
nest penitent  and  the  more  advanced  believer  are  alike  strengthened  and  helped 
forward  in  the  Christian  race.  The  fellowship  of  saints  and  the  ordinances  of  re- 
ligion quicken  the  spiritual  perception  and  sensibilities,  and  encourage  and 
strengthen  faith. 

The  mere  fact  of  membership  in  the  Church  exerts  a  most  wholesome  effect  on 
the  mind  and  heart.  Of  course,  like  all  other  aids  and  means  of  grace,  it  loses  its 
effect  upon  the  conscious  and  deliberate  hypocrite,  for  all  the  means  are  to  us 
what  we  make  them  by  our  manner  of  using  them.  Perversely  and  hypocritically 
used,  they  harden.  But  when  used  in  the  candor  and  simplicity  of  a  genuine  faith 
they  are  an  invaluable  agency  in  the  development  of  the  Christian  life.  Not  that 
the  Church  confers  salvation  officially  through  them;  but  their  use,  in  keeping 
with  the  laws  of  our  being,  quickens  faith  and  commits  us  openly  and  formally 
to  a  Christian  course.  God  makes  them  a  blessing  through  a  process  altogether 
rational.  In  the  same  way  the  very  fact  of  membership  in  the  Church  gives 
strength  to  our  purposes.  It  separates  us  openly  and  formally  from  the  world. 
It  classifies  us  with  the  people  of  God.  It  brings  home  to  us  our  high  privileges, 
and  puts  us  into  a  category  altogether  favorable  to  the  service  of  God.  It  enforces 
upon  our  attention  all  the  motives  of  piety. 

It  is  not  a  matter  of  small  consequence  what  relation  our  children  shall  sustain 
to  the  Church:  whether  they  shall  come  upon  the  arena  of  that  contest  in  which 
eternal  life  is  lost  or  won,  in  their  place  in  the  militant  host,  or  enter  it  single- 
handed  and  without  support. 

The  whole  question  of  the  relation  of  children  to  the  Church  is  involved  in  the 
doctrine  of  infant  baptism.  .  .  .  Several  large  denominations  of  Christians  in 
our  country  are  strangely  heretical  upon  this  subject.  The  popular  mind  has,  to 
a  considerable  extent,  been  infected  by  false  ideas.  "What  with  the  heresy  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration  on  one  side,  and  that  of  antipedobaptism  on  the  other,  there 
is  need  for  a  wide-spread  presentation  of  the  "truth  as  it  in  Jesus."  Controversy 
for  its  own  sake  is  undesirable,  but  when  the  interests  of  truth  demand  it  it  is  not 
to  be  shunned.  The  incidental  ill-feeling  that  may  arise  is  to  be  regretted,  but 
we  must  "contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints." 

There  is  much  shameful  neglect  of  children  by  the  Church  and  by  Christian 
parents.  The  best  possible  results  of  Christian  training  are  rarely  realized,  for  the 
reason  that  the  training  itself  is  imperfect.  A  thorough  course  of  training,  where 
there  is  a  due  blending  of  authority,  affection,  and  Christian  teaching  on  the  part 
of  parents,  and  the  proper  care  and  influence  on  the  part  of  pastors,  with  prayer 
and  faith,  would  breed  up  a  style  of  Christian  now  rarely  seen  among  us. 

This  training,  to  answer  to  the  di  vine  ideal,  must  be  based  on  baptism  and  the  cov- 
enant therein  entered  into  by  the  parent  for  the  child.  On  what  a  vantage-ground 
is  that  child  placed  wlio  has  been  brought  into  covenant  with  God  by  its  parents! 

The  parental  relation  is  greatly  disparaged  and  degraded,  so  far  at  least  as  re- 
ligion is  concerned,  by  those  who  oppose  infant  baptism.    They  deny  the  author- 


404 


Baptism, 


ity  of  the  parent  to  make  a  covenant  for  his  child.  How  totally  they  misconceive 
the  nature  of  the  parental  relation!  The  fact  is,  that  during  infancy  tlie  parent 
does  every  thing  for  the  child,  and  is  obliged  to  this  by  the  very  facts  in  tlie  case.  He 
must  believe  for  the  child  and  act  for  him  in  every  interest,  even  the  most  vital. 
The  chilli  is  in  his  hands,  incapable  of  acting  for  itself,  and  he  mmt  act  for  it,  or  let 
d  perish.  The  responsibility  is  on  him,  and  he  cannot  avoid  it.  What  food  it 
shall  eat,  \vhat  atmosphere  it  shall  live  in,  what  medicine  it  shall  take,  lie  must 
determine.  Nor  does  he  make  a  title-deed  in  which  he  does  not  covenant  for  his 
child  as  well  as  for  himself.  If  you  say  a  man  cannot  enter  into  covenant  for  his 
child,  you  contradict  nature  itself,  and  the  customsof  mankind  from  the  earHest  ages. 

If  a  man  may  not  bind  his  child  by  a  covenant  in  the  matter  of  relifjion,  it  is  an  ex- 
ception to  the  authority  he  holds  in  all  civil  relations.  If  this  be  so,  an  advantage 
is  lost  to  the  cliild  in  this  highest  of  all  interests,  that  is  secured  to  it  in  all  other 
cases.  The  mature  business  judgment  of  the  father  may  be  made  available  in  the 
temporal  interests  of  the  child,  not  in  the  way  of  advice  merely,  but  of  the  actual 
covenant  transactions  which  are  to  inure  to  his  benefit.  But  as  to  his  soul,  he 
may  be  bound  by  no  stipulations,  so  that  the  intelligent  and  matwe  faith  of  the 
father  are  not  available  in  any  such  substantial  way  for  his  spiritual  wealth  and 
safety.  The  very  instance  in  which  we  would  expect  a  gracious  God  to  secure  to 
the  child  the  highest  advantages  of  this  relation,  according  to  this  unnatural  the- 
ory, is  the  instance  in  which  he  is  to  reap  no  benefit  from  it  whatever. 

AVhere  the  filial  feeling  is  properly  evolved  there  is  the  deepest  sense  of  obli- 
gation and  honor  in  respect  to  the  fulfillment  of  any  covenant  made  by  the  parent. 
Let  this  feeling  be  properly  fostered  in  the  child,  and  then  let  him  be  trained  to 
understand  the  force  of  the  obligations  that  rest  upon  liim  from  the  baptismal  cov- 
enant entered  into  on  his  behalf  by  his  parents,  and  you  have  a  class  of  motives 
to  a  Christian  life  of  the  most  commanding  character.  These  motives  are  totally 
wanting  in  the  case  of  children  unbaptized. 

My  neighbor  says:  "I  will  not  bind  my  child  in  the  aflliirs  of  liis  sotd.  He 
shall  be  free.   He  shall  choose  for  himself.^'   This  is  quite  taking  to  tlie  popular  ear. 

But  I  say :  "  My  child  shall  nothe  free  to  go  wrong,  either  in  religion  or  any  thing 
else,  if  I  can  help  it — and  more  emphatically  in  religion  than  in  any  thing  else. 
I  will  bind  liim  by  commands,  by  covenants,  and  by  all  the  most  sacred  obliga- 
tions, to  serve  God.  I  will  environ  him  with  motives  tliat  lie  shall  feel  it  to  be 
unnatural  and  monstrous  for  him  to  disregard.  I  will  make  it  in  the  highest  de- 
gree difficult  and  painful  for  liim  to  go  to  hell." 

To  this  view  of  the  case  the  Church  must  be  brought.  There  is  much  need  of 
light  amongst  us  upon  this  subject.  Our  own  Church  needs  toning  up  greatly. 
Thousands  in  the  Church  use  little  or  no  authority  to  turn  the  young,  unpracticed 
feet  of  their  children  from  the  way  of  death.  Many  Methodists  are  incurring 
heavy  guilt  in  this  very  thing. 

Let  it  be  understood,  moreover,  that  the  duty  of  offering  our  children  to  God 
in  baptism  is  not  the  whole  truth.  The  value  of  ])aptism  to  a  child  is  found  in  the 
fact  tliat  it  is  the  starting-point  in  a  course  of  Christian  training.  Its  cliief  value 
is  in  its  relation  to  the  subsequent  training.  Its  significance  is  in  this  relation. 
If  a  thorough  Christian  training  does  not  follow,  then  the  value  and  significance 
of  the  baptism  are  never  realized.  There  is  need  of  a  great  awakening  of  the  pa- 
rental conscience.] 


PART  VL 
ARTICLE  XVIII. 

Of  the  Lord's-supper. 

The  Supper  of  the  Lord  is  not  only  a  sign  of  the  love  that  Chris- 
tians ought  to  have  among  themselves  one  to  anotlier^  hut  rather  is  a 
sacrament  of  our  redemption  hg  Christ's  death:  insomuch  that  to  such 
as  rightly,  worthily^  and  with  faith,  receive  the  same,  the  bread  tvhich 
ire  break  is  apartalcing  of  the  body  of  Christ;  and  likewise  the  cup  of 
blessing  is  a  partaking  of  the  blood  of  Christ. 

Transubstantiation,  or  the  change  of  the  substance  of  bread  and 
wine,  in  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  cannot  be  proved  by  Holy  Writ,  but 
is  repugnant  to  the  plain  words  of  Scripture,  overthroweth  the  nature 
of  a  sacrament,  and  hath  given  occasion  to  many  superstitions. 

The  body  of  Christ  is  given,  taken,  and  eaten,  in  the  Supper,  only 
after  a  heavenly  and  spiritual  manner.  And  the  means  ivhereby  the 
body  of  Christ  is  received  and  eaten,  in  the  Supper,  is  faith. 

The  sacrament  of  the  Lord's-supper  teas  not  by  Christ's  ordinance 
reserved,  carried  about,  lifted  vp,  or  icorshiped. 


Introduction. 

This  article  is,  word  for  word,  the  same  as  the  Twenty-eighth 
Article  of  the  Anglican  Confession,  [except  that  in  the  first  par- 
agrai^h  the  pronoun  "it"  is  omitted  after  the  word  "rather."] 

(405) 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  LORD'S-SUPPER:  DESIGN,  SUBJECTS,  MATTER, 
FORM,  EFFICACY. 

The  article  consists  of  four  paragraphs.    The  first  asserts: 

The  Supper  of  the  Lord  is  not  only  a  sign  of  the  love  that  Cliristians  ought  to 
liave  among  themselves  one  to  another  but  rather  is  a  sacrament  of  our  redemp- 
tion by  Christ's  death:  insomuch  that  to  such  as  rightly,  worthily,  and  with  faith 
receive  the  same,  the  bread  which  we  break  is  a  partaking  of  the  body  of  Christ; 
and  likewise  the  cup  of  blessing  is  a  partaking  of  the  blood  of  Christ. 

§  1.  A  Sign  of  Christian  Love. 

It  is  here  affirmed  that  the  Lord's-supper  is  a  sign  of  the  love 
which  Christians  have  among  themselves  one  to  another.  How- 
ever much  different  sects  may  disagree  in  regard  to  the  nature 
and  design  of  this  ordinance,  they  all  agree  in  this  point.  The 
Supper  is  a  family  feast,  to  which  none  but  members  of  the 
family  are  admitted,  and  from  which  none  of  them  are  excluded. 
It  is  thus  a  sacrament  of  friendship,  a  token  of  Christian  affec- 
tion. 

To  realize  the  full  force  of  this  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
among  the  Orientals  eating  and  drinking  together  has  always 
been  considered  an  expression  of  kindly  regard,  a  bond  of 
fellowship.  Covenants  were  ratified  in  this  way.  As  salt  is  a 
necessary  condiment,  always  taken  with  food,  so  to  eat  of  a  man's 
salt  was  to  testify  agreement  with  liim.  It  had  the  sanctity  of 
an  oath.  Especially  was  this  the  case  when  a  sacrifice  was 
offered  and  they  feasted  upon  it. 

William  the  . Conqueror  had  this  in  view  when  he  swore  Harold 
to  fealty  over  th^  relics  of  the  saints,  secreted  in  the  altar  on 
which  he  was  sworn.  An  ordinary  oath  might  be  broken,  but 
hardly  one  taken  with  such  solemnity.  So  when  Christians  eat 
and  drink  together  the  sacred  emblems  which  represent  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  they  may  well  consider  it  a  token  of 
friendship  not  likely  to  be  disregarded.  Accordingly,  none  are 
welcomed  to  the  Lord's  table  except  such  as  "are  in  love  and 
charity  with  their  neighbors." 

It  is  an  exhibition  of  catholic  love.  Here  we  merge  all  polit- 
(406) 


Design,  Subjects,  Matter,  Form,  Efficacy. 


407 


ical  and  social  distinctions,  and  show  that  we  are  all  one  in  Christ 
Jesus.  The  spirit  of  the  Lord's-supper  is  that  breathed  by  the 
apostle,  "Grace  be  with  all  them  that  love  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  sincerity."  (Eph.  vi.  24.)  In  no  other  act  is  there  so 
obvious  a  realization  of  "the  communion  of  saints"  professed 
in  the  Creed  as  in  this.  All  the  thoughts  and  feelings  of  devout 
communicants  center  around  the  Saviour;  thus  "they  toward 
each  other  move,"  as  they  all  mutually  "move  toward  him." 
As  Whitby  says,  in  his  note  on  1  Cor.  x.  16,  17:  "Because  the 
bread  or  loaf  is  one,  of  which  we  all  partake,  we,  being  many,  are 
one  body,  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  one  loaf,  according  to  the 
old  proverbial  expression,  cbafftroi  xm  abaaojiwir 

In  this  feast  all  meet  as  catholic  Christians,  holding  in  abey- 
ance all  peculiar  views,  whether  of  doctrine  or  of  polity,  receiv- 
ing none  to  doubtful  disputations,  but  receiving  one  another  as 
Christ  also  hath  received  us,  to  the  glory  of  God.  (Eom.  xiv. 
l;xv.  7.)  . 

It  seems  so  strange  that  an  institution  thus  designed,  and  so 
well  adapted  to  promote  the  fellowship  of  saints,  should  have 
been  made,  more  than  all  others,  the  occasion  of  alienation,  divis- 
ion, and  strife. 

§  2.  A  Sacrament  of  our  Redemption. 

But  the  article  proceeds  to  say  that  the  Lord's-supper  is  a 
sacrament  of  our  redemption  by  Christ's  death. 

If  we  bear  in  mind  the  definition  of  a  sacrament,  we  shall  see 
that  all  the  points  meet  in  this  ordinance.  Notice  first  its  divine 
institution.  It  was  "ordained  by  Christ  himself."  The  account 
of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's-supper  is  given  by  the  three 
Synoptists  and  by  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xi. 

After  giving  an  account  of  the  celebration  of  the  Passover  by 
our  Lord  and  the  twelve  apostles,  on  the  night  before  his  death, 
Matthew  says:  "And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread,  and 
blessed  it,  and  gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and  said,  Take,  eat;  this 
is  my  body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  it 
to  them,  saying,  Drink  ye  all  of  it;  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the 
New  Testament,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of 
sins.  But  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  not  drink  henceforth  of  this 
fruit  of  the  vine,  until  that  day  when  I  drink  it  new  with  you  in 
my  Father's  kingdom.  And  when  they  had  sung  a  hymn,  they 
went  out  into  the  Mount  of  Olives."    (Matt.  xxvi.  26-30.)  There 


408 


TJie  LonVs-sapper. 


is  a  slight  verbal  variation  in  Mark  xiv.  22-26:  "And  as  they 
did  eat,  Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed,  and  brake  it,  and  gave 
to  them,  and  said.  Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  the 
cup,  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  gave  it  to  them:  and 
they  all  drank  of  it.  And  he  said  unto  them.  This  is  my  blood 
of  the  new  testament,  which  is  shed  for  many.  Yerily  I  say 
unto  you,  I  will  drink  no  more  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  until 
that  day  that  I  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  And  when 
they  had  sung  a  hymn,  they  went  out  into  the  Mount  of  Olives." 
Matthew  reports  Christ's  saying,  "  Drink  ye  all  of  it,"  which  Mark 
omits,  but  adds,  "  and  they  all  drank  of  it."  Matthew  has  "  for 
the  remission  of  sins,"  which  Mark  omits.  Luke  places  the  re- 
mark concerning  the  eating  and  drinking  in  the  kingdom  of 
God  immediately  before  the  institution  of  the  eucharist,  which 
he  records  very  briefly:  "And  he  took  bread,  and  gave  thanks, 
and  brake  it,  and  gave  unto  them  saying,  This  is  my  body 
which  is  given  for  you:  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  Ijike- 
wise  also  the  cup  after  supper,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  new  tes- 
tament in  my  blood,  which  is  shed  for  you."  (Luke  xxii.  19, 
20.)  Paul  is  a  little  fuller,  but  more  like  Luke  than  the  others: 
"  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered 
unto  you.  That  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  in  which  he  was 
betrayed,  took  bread:  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake 
it,  and  said,  Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you: 
this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  After  the  same  manner  also  he 
took  the  cup,  when  he  had  supped,  saying.  This  cup  is  the 
new  testament  in  my  blood,  this  do  ye  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in 
remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and 
drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come."  Luke 
has  "  given  for  you,"  Paul  has  "  broken."  Luke  has  "  whic]i  is 
shed  for  you,"  which  Paul  omits,  adding,  "this  do  ye  as  oft  as 
ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me."  Paul  makes  an  explanatory 
remark,  showing  that  our  Lord,  from  whom  he  received  the  ac- 
count of  the  institution,  intended  it  to  be  observed  through  all 
time,  till  his  second  coming.  ^    .      ,  i  ^ 

It  is  remarkable  that  John,  who  lay  in  the  Saviour  s  bosom  at 
the  Supper,  does  not  record  the  institution.  AVe  see  where  he 
would  have  inserted  it  if  he  had  seen  proper  to  record  it,  to  wit 
after  Judas  retired  (John  xiii.  30),  and  Just  before  Christ  delivered 
the  paschal  discourses  (John  xiv.-xvii.).    John  wrote  long  after 


Design,  Subjects,  Matter,  Form,  Efficacy.  409 


the  Synoptists  and  Paul,  and  did  not  consider  it  necessary  to 
do  in  this  case  what  all  four  of  them  had  done. 

There  are  but  one  or  two  references  to  the  Lord's-supper  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  only  one  other  in  the  Epistles  (1 
Cor.  X.  3,  4.),  while  they  abound  with  references  to  baptism  and 
preaching.  The  references  are  sufficiently  numerous  and  ex- 
plicit to  show  that  it  is  of  divine  institution,  and  intended  for 
permanent  observance,  but  not  so  numerous  and  pronounced  as 
to  make  the  impression  that  this  sacrament  casts  every  thing 
else  into  the  shade,  as  some  of  the  Fathers,  Schoolmen,  Roman- 
ists, and  Anglican  divines  would  have  us  believe. 

§  3.  The  Subjects  of  This  Ordinance. 

The  subjects  of  this  ordinance  are  important  to  be  noted,  as 
the  sacrament  cannot  be  celebrated  unless  there  are  some  to  cel- 
ebrate it.  At  its  institution  there  were  but  eleven  who  partook 
of  it,  Judas  having  gone  out  on  his  traitorous  errand.  Jesus,  of 
course,  did  not  i)artake  of  the  eucharist,  as  he  had  partaken  of 
the  passover.  All  the  first  communicants  were  apostles.  It  was 
not  convenient  to  gather  together  all  the  disciples  then  in  Je- 
rusalem; so  none  but  the  apostles  were  invited,  not  even  the 
mother  of  our  Lord,  or  the  other  Marys,  who  were  so  beloved 
by  the  Saviour,  and  who  loved  him  so  much.  It  was  not  neces- 
sary that  they  should  be  at  this  commemorative  service,  as  the 
Lord  was  still  in  person  upon  the  earth.  It  was  necessary  that 
the  apostles  should  be  present,  not  only  that  they  might  be  com- 
municants, but  that  they  might  understand  their  Lord's  design, 
and  make  it  known  to  the  world. 

So  far  as  appears  from  the  Acts  and  1  Corinthians,  all  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ,  after  the  pentecostal  affusion  of  the  Spirit  and 
the  formal  organization  of  the  Church,  partook  of  this  ordinance; 
and  ever  since  it  has  been  considered  the  duty  and  privilege  of 
all  Christians  to  do  this  in  remembrance  of  their  dying  Lord. 

The  question  is  sometimes  raised  whether  any  who  ai^e  un- 
baptized  should  be  allowed  to  come  to  the  table,  as  none  who 
were  uncircumcised  were  allowed  to  eat  the  Passover,  the 
correspondent  sacrament  of  tlie  Jewish  Church.  Most  certainly 
baptism  is  a  prerequisite  for  communion,  as  the  Lord's-supper 
is  a  Church  ordinance  designed  for  members  of  the  Church,  and 
none  are  members  who  are  not  baptized.    But  there  may  be  ex- 


410 


The  Lord's-supper. 


ceptions  to  this  rule,  as  in  cases  where  one  who  loves  the  Saviour, 
but  has  not  had  the  opportunity  to  be  baptized,  is  present  at  the 
administration  of  the  Lord's-supper,  and  wishes  thus  to  testify 
his  attachment  to  his  Lord.  The  will  in  such  a  case  may  be 
taken  for  the  deed.  He  does  not  refuse  baptism;  is  not 
ashamed  of  Jesus— rather  the  contrary — and  no  harm  can  re- 
sult from  his  participating  in  this  solemnity. 

It  is  also  sometimes  asked  whether  any  should  commune  who 
have  not  the  witness  of  their  acceptance  with  the  Beloved,  but 
are  seeking  it.  Most  assuredly  they  should.  Of  all  men  upon 
the  earth,  they  need  it  most.  The  very  act  of  communion,  while 
they  ai'e  laying  hold  of  the  outward  thing,  may  enable  them  to 
lay  hold  of  the  thing  signified.  A  poor  penitent  sinner,  seek- 
ing pardon,  receives  the  sacred  symbols  "  rightly,  worthily,  and 
with  faith,"  ^end  thus  has  communion  with  Christ,  and  goes  on 
his  way  rejoicing. 

When  superstitious  notions  of  the  sacrament  began  to  take 
root  in  the  Church,  the  eucharist  was  given  to  infants,  and  the 
absurd  custom  still  obtains  in  the  Greek  Church.  The  case  is 
altogether  different  from  baptism,  which  is  administered  to  in- 
fants as  their  matriculation  in  the  school  of  Christ,  where  they 
are  to  be  brought  up  in  the  nurture  and  admoiiition  of  the  Lord; 
the  one  act  of  baptism  extending  in  its  virtue  all  through  life. 
But  the  Lord's-supper  requires  repentance,  faith,  obedience — 
a  ratification  of  the  threefold  vow  of  baptism — and  a  discerning 
of  the  Lord's  body  and  blood,  of  which  infants  are  incapable; 
hence  the  folly,  not  to  say  profanity,  of  giving  infants  the  sacred 
symbols. 

As  the  administrator  is  not  of  the  essence  of  the  sacrament, 
not  a  word  is  said  about  him  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
Supper  is  celebrated  rather  than  administered.  Christ,  of 
course,  first  administered  to  his  disciples,  but  he  did  not  partake 
of  it  himself.  The  apostles  partook  of  it,  biit  it  is  nowhere  said 
that  they  administered  it.  It  appears  from  1  Cor.  xi.  that  the 
members  of  the  Church  met  together — at  a  stated  time,  says 
Pliny  to  Trajan;  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  says  Luke  (Acts 
XX.  7) — and  partook  of  a  meal  in  common:  their  ayd-ri^  or  love- 
feast,  at  the  close  of  which  some  of  the  bread  and  wine  were  set 
apart  from  a  common  to  a  sacred  use,  and  eaten  and  drunk  in  com- 
memoration of  Christ.  Nothing  could  be  more  simple,  beautiful, 


Design,  Subjects,  Matter,  Form,  Efficacy.  411 


and  edifying.  With  what  ceremonies  it  was  celebrated  we  are  not 
informed,  and  who  administered  it  is  not  stated.  It  is  quite 
likely  that  the  pastor  presided,  so  that  all  things  might  be  clone 
decently  and  in  order;  but  this  was  not  necessary  to  make  it  a 
sacrament.  It  is  well  to  restrict  the  administration  ordinarily 
to  pastors  and  other  Church  officers,  and  any  Church  has  the 
right  to  adopt  rules  in  the  premises,  which  ought  to  be  observed 
to  prevent  confusion  and  to  minister  to  edification.  Otherwise 
we  see  not  why  any  company  of  Christians  might  not  reverently 
eat  and  drink  in  remembrance  of  Christ,  and  enjoy  all  the  spir- 
itual blessings  of  this  sacrament.  Those  who  think  differently 
must  bring  forward  better  authority  for  their  opinions  than  the 
superstitious  deliverances  of  Ignatius,  or  the  pseudo-Ignatius, 
and  other  Fathers,  and  the  canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 
Alford  well  remarks  on  1  Cor.  x.  16:  the  bread  ichich  ive  bless: 

Observe,  the  first  person  plural  is  the  same  throughout:  the  blessing  of  the 
cup,  and  the  breaking  of  the  bread,  the  acts  of  consecration,  were  not  the  acts  of  the 
minister,  as  by  any  authority  joeculiur  to  himself,  but  only  as  the  representative  oj  the  ol 
navreg,  the  whole  Christian  congregation  (and  so  even  Estius,  but  evading  the  legit- 
imate inference).  The  figment  of  sacerdotal  consecration  of  the  elements  by 
transmitted  power  is  as  alien  from  the  apostolic  writings  as  it  is  from  the  spirit  of 
the  gospel. 

Truly  it  is,  and  this  is  an  important  admission  from  an  An- 
glican divine.  Estius  was  an  able  Eomish  exegete.  He  knew 
well  enough  that  Paul  never  dreamed  of  any  sacerdotal  con- 
secration and  administration  of  the  Lord's-supper,  whatever 
his  Church  might  superstitiously  and  arrogantly  hold  in  the 
premises. 

§  4.  The  Matter  of  This  Sacrament. 

As  to  the  matter  of  this  sacrament,  it  is  clearly  stated  that  it 
consisted  of  bread  and  wine,  such  as  was  commonly  used  for 
food.  Of  course  the  bread  used  by  our  Lord  at  the  institution 
of  the  eucharist  was  unleavened  bread,  as  none  else  was  eaten  at 
the  time  of  the  Passover. 

The  Koman  Catechism  says: 

As,  however,  there  are  different  sorts  of  bread,  composed  of  different  materials, 
such  as  wheat,  barley,  pease,  or  made  in  different  manners,  such  as  leavened  and 
unleavened;  it  is  to  be  observed  that,  with  regard  to  the  former,  the  sacramental 
matter,  according  to  the  words  of  our  Lord,  should  consist  of  wheaten  bread;  for 
when  we  simply  say  bread  we  mean,  according  to  common  usage,  "wheaten 
bread."    This  i-.  also  distinctly  declared  by  a  figure  of  the  holy  eucharist  in  the 


412 


The  Lord' s-supper. 


Old  Testament:  the  Lord  commanded  that  the  loaves  of  proposition,  which  pre- 
figured the  sacrament,  should  be  made  of  fine  flour. 

We  might  remark  that  this  is  not  a  very  distinct  declaration, 
as  there  is  no  proof  that  the  shew-bread  was  a  type  of  this  sac- 
rament.   The  Catechism  proceeds: 

As,  therefore,  wheaten  bread  alone  is  the  proper  matter  of  this  sacrament,  a 
doctrine  handed  down  by  apostolic  tradition,  and  confirmed  by  the  authority  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  it  may  also  be  inferred  from  the  circumstances  in  which  the 
eucharist  was  instituted,  that  this  wlieaten  bread  should  be  unleavened.  It  was 
consecrated  and  instituted  by  our  Lord,  on  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread,  a  time 
Avhen  the  Jews  were  prohibited  by  the  law  to  have  leavened  bread  in  their  houses. 
.  .  .  Tiie  peculiar  propriety  of  the  consecration  of  unleavened  bread,  to  express 
tlie  integrity  and  purity  of  heart  with  which  the  faithful  should  approach  this  sac- 
rament, we  learn  from  these  words  of  the  apostle:  "Purge  out  the  old  leaven,  that 
ye  may  be  a  new  paste,  as  you  are  unleavened;  for  Christ,  our  Pasch,  is  sacrificed. 
Therefore  let  us  feast  not  with  the  old  leaven,  not  with  the  leaven  of  malice  and 
wickedness,  but  with  the  upleavencd  bread  of  sincerity  and  truth."  This  property 
of  the  bread,  however,  is  not  to  be  considered  so  essential  as  that  its  absence  must 
render  the  sacrament  null:  both  sorts,  leavened  and  unleavened,  are  called  by 
the  common  name,  and  have  each  the  nature  and  properties  of  bread.  No  one, 
however,  should  on  his  own  individual  authority  have  the  temerity  to  depart 
from  the  laudable  rite  observed  in  the  Church  to  which  he  belongs;  and  such  de- 
parture is  the  less  warrantable  in  priests  of  the  Latin  Church,  commanded,  as  they 
are,  by  authority  of  the  Supreme  PontiflT,  to  celebrate  the  sacred  mysteries  with 
unleavened  bread  only. 

As  the  Ptomanists  lay  so  much  stress  upon  the  argument  for 
the  use  of  unleavened  bread,  that  such  was  used  at  the  insti- 
tution of  the  eucharist,  how  comes  it  that  they  administer  in  the 
form  of  a  wafer,  with  the  representation  of  a  crucified  Christ  on 
it?  Did  not  our  Lord  break  the  bread  when  he  gave  it  to  his 
disciples?  and  did  he  not  tell  them,  "Do  this  in  remembrance 
of  me?" 

The  Greeks  utterly  repudiate  the  Eomish  eucharist  adminis- 
tered with  unleavened  bread.  They  stigmatize  the  Eomanists 
as  "Azymites,"  a  term  implying  "  without  leaven."  It  was  nat- 
ural for  the  Greeks  to  use  leavened  bread,  as  from  the  time 
of  the  apostles  that  was  used  in  the  Lord's-supper.  The  prim- 
itive Christians  held  their  love-feast  on  Sundaj-,  in  which  they 
ate  and  drank  together  in  a  social  way.  At  the  conclusion  of 
the  repast  they  took  some  of  the  bread  and  wine  thus  provided, 
and  set  it  apart  for  the  eucharist,  which  immediately  followed. 
(1  Cor.  xi.  )  When  this  custom  ceased,  and  the  arjapre  were 
abolished,  the  Greeks  retained  the  common,  or  leavened,  bread. 


Design^  Subjects^  Matter^  Form,  Efficacy. 


413 


So  in  the  eighth  century  unleavened  bread  came  into  use  in  the 
Latin  Church.  In  tlie  eleventh  century  the  Greeks  declared 
this  a  heresy.  At  the  Council  of  Florence,  in  M39,  it  was  agreed, 
in  order  to  promote  the  union  of  the  Churches,  that  either  kind 
might  be  used,  but  the  Greeks  soon  rejected  the  Council  and  its 
decrees,  and  they  Avill  not  tolerate  the  Azymites. 

In  the  Church  of  England  unleavened  bread  was  prescribed 
by  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  was  generally  used  during  her  reign. 
It  was  retained  at  AVestminster  till  1642,  and  its  use  has  never 
been  forbidden,  but  the  use  of  leavened  bread  is  now  general  in 
the  Anglican  Church  and  its  offshoots.    A  rubric  says: 

To  take  away  all  occasion  of  dissension  and  superstition,  -which  any  person  hath, 
or  might  liave,  concerning  the  bread  and  wine,  it  shall  suffice  that  the  bread  be 
such  as  is  usual  to  be  eaten;  but  the  best  and  purest  wheat  bread  that  conven- 
iently may  be  gotten. 

But  the  bread  usually  eaten  is  leavened.  Why  they  cut  the 
bread,  when  our  Lord  broke  it  and  intimated  that  we  should  do 
the  same,  does  not  aj^pear. 

Upon  the  whole  we  prefer  unleavened  bread  made  of  wheaten 
flour,  not  cut,  but  prepared  in  cakes  convenient  to  be  broken 
and  distributed  to  the  communicants,  putting  it  into  their  hands 
and  not  into  their  mouths,  like  the  Lutherans,  But  we  do  not 
lay  much  stress  upon  these  points.  The  element  in  this  case  is 
not  so  clearly  defined  as  to  restrict  it  absolutely  to  wheaten 
bread,  leavened  or  unleavened,  as  is  the  case  with  regard  to  the 
other  element. 

"The  fruit  of  the  vine  "  is  a  Hebraism  for  wine,  which  is  the 
fermented  juice  of  the  grape.  Indeed  the  Greeks  used  similar 
figures;  Anacreon  calls  wine  yo'^ov  d/j-i/.ou,  "the  offspring  of  the 
vine."  (Ode  i.,  line  7.)  So  frequently  in  Greek  literature:  al/^a 
PoTpoavj,  "  the  blood  of  grapes."  Cf.  Deut.  xxxii.  14:  "  The  blood 
of  the  grape." 

The  Boman  Catechism  says: 

The  sacred  element  of  this  sacrament,  Avhich  forms  part  of  its  matter,  consists 
of  wine  pressed  from  the  grape,  mingled  with  a  little  water.  That  our  Lord 
made  use  of  wine  in  the  institution  of  this  sacrament,  has  been  at  all  times  the 
doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church.  He  himself  said,  "  I  will  not  drink,  henceforth, 
of  this  fruit  of  the  vine  until  that  day."  On  these  words  of  our  Lord  St.  Chry- 
sostom  observes:  "Of  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  which  certainly  produces  wine,  not 
water,  as  if  he  had  it  in  view,  even  at  so  early  a  period,  to  crush  by  the  evidence 
of  these  words  the  heresy  which  asserted  that  water  alone  is  to  be  used  in  these 


414 


The  Lords-supper, 


mysteries."  With  tlie  wine  used  in  the  aacred  mysteries  the  Cliurch  of  God,  how- 
ever, has  always  mingled  water,  because  this  admixture  renews  the  recollection 
of  tlje  blood  and  water  which  issued  from  his  sacred  side.  The  word  water  we 
also  find  used  in  the  Apocalypse,  to  signify  the  people,  and  therefore  water 
mixed  with  wine  signifies  the  union  of  the  faithful  with  Christ  their  Head.  This 
rite,  derived  from  apostolic  tradition,  the  Catholic  Church  has  at  all  times  ob- 
served. The  propriety  of  mingling  water  with  the  wine  rests,  it  is  true,  on  au- 
thority so  grave  that  to  omit  the  practice  would  be  to  incur  the  guilt  of  mortal 
sin;  however,  its  sole  omission  v/ould  be  insufficient  to  render  the  sacrament  null. 
But  care  must  be  taken  not  only  to  mingle  water  with  the  wine,  but  also  to  min- 
gle it  in  small  quantities,  for  in  the  opinion  of  ecclesiastical  writers  the  water  is 
changed  into  wine.  Hence  these  words  of  Pope  Honorius:  "A  pernicious  abuse 
has  prevailed  for  a  long  time  amongst  you  of  using  in  the  holy  sacrifice  a  greater 
quantity  of  water  than  of  wine ;  whereas,  in  accordance  with  the  rational  practice  of 
the  universal  Church,  the  wine  should  be  used  in  much  greater  quantity  than  the 
water."  We  have  now  treated  of  the  only  two  elements  of  this  sacrament,  and 
although  some  d^^ed  to  do  otherwise,  many  decrees  of  the  Church  justly  enact 
that  no  celebrant  ofTer  any  thing  but  bread  and  wine. 

One  cannot  help  smiling  at  the  childish  reasons  for  the  min- 
gling of  water  with  the  wine;  and  the  assertion  that  to  omit  it  is 
a  mortal  sin,  though  it  would  npt  nullify  the  sacrament. 

The  heretics  alluded  to  by  Chrysostom  were  a  set  of  ascetics, 
called  Aquarians,  because,  as  they  considered  the  use  of  wine, 
animal  food,  and  marriage  unlawful,  they  used  water  instead  of 
w^ine  in  their  pretended  eucharist,  hence  their  name  "Aquari- 
ans."   Hook  says: 

It  is  lamentable  to  see  so  bold  an  impiety  revived  in  the  present  day,  when 
certain  men,  under  the  cloak  of  temperance,  pretend  a  eucharist  without  wine  or 
any  fermented  liquor.  These  heretics  are  not  to  be  confounded  with  those  against 
whom  St.  Cyprian  discourses  at  large  in  his  "Letter  to  Cicilian,"  who,  from  fear  of 
being  discerned  from  the  smell  of  wine,  by  the  heathen,  in  times  of  persecution, 
omitted  the  wine  in  the  eucharist  cup.  It  was  indeed  very  wrong,  and  unworthy 
of  the  Christian  name,  but  far  less  culpable  than  the  pretense  of  a  temperance 
above  that  of  Christ  and  the  Church,  in  the  Aqmrii.  Origen  engaged  in  a  dis- 
putation with  them. 

The  Christians  of  St.  Thomas,  an  ignorant,  superstitious  sect 
in  a  peninsula  of  India,  use  in  the  Lord's-supper  little  cakes 
made  with  oil  and  salt,  and  instead  of  wine,  water  in  which  rai- 
sins have  been  steeped. 

It  is  said  that  Oberlin,  in  the  mountains  of  Switzerland,  used 
instead  of  wine  melted  snow,  served  up  in  wooden  bowls. 

The  Hebrews,  Greeks,  and  Bomans  usually  mixed  water  with 
their  wine  in  their  symposia;  the  symposiarch,  or  master  of 
the  feast,  determined  the  proportions.    They  did  this  partly  be- 


to 

Design,  Subjects,  Matter,  Form,  Efficacy, 


415 


cause  they  considered  it  more  salutary  than  either  wine  or  water 
by  itself.  Thus  the  author  of  2  Maccabees  xv.  39  says:  "It  is 
hurtful  to  drink  wine  or  water  alone,  and  wine  mingled  with 
water  is  pleasant  and  delighteth  the  taste."  But  at  their  ban- 
quets, w^hich  lasted  for  hours,  they  drank  a  great  deal;  hence 
they  diluted  the  wine  to  prevent  inebriation.  This  was  done  by 
the  Jews  at  their  Passover.  Our  Lord  and  his  disciples  very 
probably  complied  with  the  common  usage,  and  the  rather  as  the 
use  of  wine  was  not  prescribed  in  the  institution  of  the  Passover. 

The  early  Christians  mixed  water  wdth  the  wine  in  the  Lord's- 
Bupper.  Sometimes  the  pBoportion  of  water  was  one-fourth; 
sometimes  one-third.  The  Komish  Church  uses  cold  water;  the 
Greeks  first  put  in  cold  and,  after  the  consecration,  add  warm: 
thus  designing  to  symbolize  the  water  which  flowed  from  the 
side  of  Christ,  and  the  fire  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Theophylact  and  Nicephorus  condemn  the  Armenians  for  not 
mixing  water  with  the  wine. 

McClintock  and  Strong,  in  their  Cyclopedia  (Art.  "  Lord's- 
supper") say: 

The  sacred  element  used  by  Christ  was  wine.  It  is  not  certain  of  what  color 
the  wine  was,  nor  Avhether  it  was  pure  or  mixed  with  water,  tind  both  points  were 
always  regarded  as  indifferent  by  the  Christian  Church.  The  use  of  mixed  wine 
is  said  to  have  been  introduced  by  Pope  Alexander  I.;  it  was  expressly  enacted  in 
the  twelfth  century  by  Clement  III.,  and  divers  allegorical  significations  were 
given  to  the  mingling  of  these  two  elements.  Also  the  Greek  Church  mingles 
the  wine  with  water,  while  the  Armenian  and  the  Protestant  Churches  use  pure 
wine.  The  question  as  to  whether  the  wine  originally  used  in  the  Lord's-supper 
was  fermented  or  not  would  seem  to  be  a  futile  one  in  view  of  the  facts:  (1)  that 
the  unfermented  juice  of  the  grape  can  hardly  with  propriety  be  called  wine  at  all; 
(2)  that  fermented  wine  is  of  almost  universal  use  in  the  East;  and  (3)  that  it  has 
universally  been  employed  for  this  purpose  in  the  Church  of  all  ages  and  coun- 
tries. But  for  the  excessive  zeal  of  certain  modern  well-meaning  reformers,  the 
idea  that  our  Lord  used  any  other  would  hardly  have  gained  the  least  currency. 

Upon  the  whole  we  conclude  that  it  would  be  better  not  to 
pretend  to  celebrate  the  Lord's-supper  than  to  do  it  with  water, 
unfermented  grape  or  raisin  juice,  or  any  other  slop.  Get  the 
pure,  fermented,  generous  juice,  "the  blood  of  the  grape,"  and  if 
possible  let  it  be  red,  as  best  setting  forth  the  thing  signified. 

§  5.  The  Form  of  This  Sacrament. 

The  form  of  this  sacrament  is  not  prescribed  like  the  matter, 
yet  it  is  essential  to  its  due  celebration.    We  could  hardly  con- 


416 


The  LorcVs'Supper. 


sider  it  a  Stacramental  act  to  put  bread  and  wine  on  the  table, 
and  eat  and  drink  it  in  rememlDrance  of  Christ,  without  uttering 
a  sentence.  Some  form  of  speech  seems  necessary  to  set  forth 
the  nature  and  design  of  the  action. 

This  is  what  is  commonly  called  consecration  of  the  ele- 
ments." Eomanists  say  this  is  done  by  the  priest's  pronouncing 
the  words  lioc  est  enim  corpus  meum — "for  this  is  my  body"— 
at  the  consecration  of  the  bread,  when  they  allege  it  is  changed 
into  the  body,  blood,  soul,  and  divinity  of  Christ;  and  at  the 
consecration  of  the  wine,  This  is  the  chalice  of  my  blood  of  the 
new  and  eternal  testament:  the  mystery  of  faith,  which  shall  be 
shed  for  you  and  for  many,  to  the  remission  of  sins,"  when  the 
wune  undergoes  a  similar  change.  They  sustain  this  view,  as 
usual,  by  references  to  Fathers  and  Councils;  and  the  Catechism 
adds: 

The  necessity  of  every  other  proof  is  superseded  by  these  words  of  the  Saviour, 
"This  do  for  a  commemoration  of  me."  This  command  of  our  Lord  embraces  not 
only  wliat  he  did,  but  also  what  he  said,  and  has  more  immediate  reference  to  his 
own  words,  uttered  not  less  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  than  of  signifying  what 
they  effect. 

The  Catechism  is  a  poor  commentary;  hence  it  Avould  not  be 
necessary  to  repudiate  so  absurd  an  exposition,  if  it  had  not 
found  favor  with  Hooker  and  some  other  Protestant  divines. 
Now,  it  is  obviously  not  the  case  that  our  Lord,  when  he  spoke 
those  words,  made  his  apostles  i)riests,  and  told  them  to  say  and 
do  w^hat  he  was  doing  in  consecrating  the  elements.  He  did  not 
mean  that  they  were  to  celebrate  as  priests,  but  to  take,  eat,  and 
drink,  as  his  disciples;  they  were  to  do  this  in  remembrance  of 
him,  as  Paul  says,  "  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink 
this  cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death  until  he  come." 

The  Eoman  Catechism  continues: 

That  these  words  constitute  the  form  is  easily  proved  from  reason  alone.  The 
form  of  a  sacrament  is  that  which  signifies  what  is  accomplished  in  the  sacrament; 
what  is  accomplished  in  the  eucharist,  that  is,  the  conversion  of  the  bread  into 
the  true  body  of  our  Lord,  the  words,  this  is  my  body,  signify  and  declare;  they 
therefore  constitute  the  form.  The  words  of  the  Evangelist,  "he  blessed,"  go  to 
support  this  reasoning.  They  are  equivalent  to  saying :  "  Taking  bread,  he  blessed 
it,  saying,  This  is  my  body."  The  words  "  Take  and  eat,"  it  is  true,  precede 
the  words  "This  is  my  body,"  but  they  evidently  express  the  use,  not  the  consecra- 
tion, of  the  matter,  and  cannot  therefore  constitute  the  form.  But  though  not  nec- 
essary to  the  consecration  of  the  sacrament,  they  are  not,  however,  on  any  account, 
to  be  omitted.    The  conjunction  "for"  has  also  a  place  amongst  the  words  of  con- 


Design,  Subjects,  Matter,  Form,  Efficacy. 


417 


secration;  otherwise  it  would  follow  that  if  the  sacrament  were  not  to  be  admin- 
istered to  any  one,  it  should  not,  or  even  could  not,  be  consecrated ;  whereas  that 
the  priest,  by  pronouncing  the  words  of  our  Lord,  according  to  the  institution 
and  practice  of  the  Church,  truly  consecrates  the  proper  matter  of  the  sacrament, 
although  it  should  afterward  liappen  never  to  be  administered,  admits  not  the 
least  shadow  of  doubt. 

One  may  afford  to  smile  when  the  Catechism  calls  that  reason- 
ing. The  form  of  the  sacrament  signifies  no  such  transmutation 
of  the  matter;  it  simply  denotes  its  design  and  use.  A  singular 
sacrament  that  must  be  which  is  never  administered.  How 
would  it  be  in  the  case  of  the  other  sacrament?  Would  that 
be  baptism  in  which  w^ater  is  blessed,  but  never  applied  to  the 
subject  ? 

It  may  be  the  case  that  it  would  be  a  valid  sacrament  if  the 
proper  matter  (bread  and  wine)  were  set  forth,  and  the  words  of 
Christ  recited,  "This  is  my  body;  this  is  my  blood,"  as  a  form 
indicating  the  design,  to  wit,  to  represent  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ,  and  then  the  elements  were  reverently  eaten  and 
drunk.  But  unless  there  was  a  charm  in  the  words  Hoc  est  cor- 
2ms  memn,  Hie  est  sanguis,  etc.  (as  the  Romanists  maintain),  we 
see  no  reason  for  confining  the  form  to  these  words. 

Dr.  Knapp  says,  judiciously  ("Christian  Theology,"  p.  504.): 

Christ  distinguished  this  ordinance  from  the  Passover,  which  immediately  pre- 
ceded, by  offering  up  a  prayer  of  thanks  (evxapcarr/aag  or  evloyrjaaq)^  which  was 
probably  one  of  the  brief  thanksgivings  common  among  the  Jews,  as  neither  of 
the  evangelists  has  thought  necessary  to  record  the  words.  He  then  stated  briefly 
the  object  of  this  ordinance.  In  both  of  these  particulars  the  example  of  Christ 
is  properly  followed  in  the  administration  of  the  Supper.  It  is  customary  to  offer 
thanks  to  God,  briefly  to  state  the  object  of  this  ordinance,  and  thus  solemnly  set 
apart  the  bread  and  wine  to  this  sacred  use.  Vide  1  Cor.  x.  16,  Tvorypcov  evTioyiag, 
6  ev?ioyovfiev — i.  e.,  the  wine  in  the  cup,  which  we  consecrate  to  this  use  by  tlie 
prayer  of  thanks.  It  is  also  said  elsewhere  respecting  those  who  thank  God  for 
the  enjoyment  of  other  food,  that  they  partake  of  it  /^er'  evXnycag^  1  Tim.  iv.  5; 
Luke  ix.  16. 

This  solemn  opening  of  the  Supper  with  prayer  and  reference  to  the  command 
of  Jesus  is  called  consecration,  and  is  proper  and  according  to  the  Avill  of  Christ. 
Consecration,  therefore,  in  the  Lord's-supper,  consists  properly  in  a  solemn  refer- 
ence to  the  object  of  the  Supper,  and  in  the  devout  prayer  accompanying  this,  and 
not  in  tlie  repetition  of  the  words,  this  is  my  body  and  this  is  my  blood.  These  words 
are  uttered  merely  in  order  to  make  the  nature  and  object  of  the  ordinance  then 
to  be  celebrated  properly  understood;  so  our  symbolical  books  uniformly  teach. 
Hence  these  words  were  frequently  repeated  by  Christ  during  the  celebration  of 
the  ordinance,  and  were  used  alternatively  with  other  expressions.  This  consecra- 
tion is  not  to  be  supposed  to  possess  any  magical  or  miraculous  power.  Nothing 
27  Vol.  II. 


418 


The  Lord^S'Supper. 


like  this  was  attributed  to  this  rite  by  the  older  Church  Fathers,  who  used  conse- 
crare  as  synonymous  with  dyta^eiv  and  sanctificare,  to  set  apart  from  a  amnion,  and 
consecrate  to  a  saxired  use.  By  degrees,  however,  a  magical  effect  was  attributed  to 
consecration,  and  it  was  supposed  to  possess  a  peculiar  power.  This  was  the  case 
even  with  Augustin.  And  when  afterward  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation 
prevailed  in  the  Eomish  Church,  it  was  supposed  that  the  change  in  the  elements 
was  effected  by  pronouncing  over  them  the  blessing,  and  especially  the  words  of 
Christ,  this  is  my  body,  etc. 

Bingham  says  (Antiq.  xv.,  iii.,  11): 

The  form  of  consecration  anciently  was  not  a  bare  repetition  of  these  words. 
Hoc  est  corpus  meum,  "This  is  my  body,"  which  for  many  ages  has  been  the  cur- 
rent doctrine  of  the  Romish  schools;  but  a  repetition  of  the  history  of  the  insti- 
tution, together  with  prayers  to  God  that  he  would  send  his  Holy  Spirit  upon 
the  gifts,  and  make  them  become  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ;  not  by  altering 
their  nature  and  substance,  but  their  qualities  and  powers,  and  exalting  them 
from  simple  elements  of  bread  and  wine  to  become  types  and  symbols  of  Christ's 
flesh  and  blood,  and  efficacious  instruments  of  conveying  to  worthy  receivers  all 
the  benefits  of  his  death  and  passion. 

The  learned  antiquary  gives  in  detail  an  abundance  of  patristic 
testimonies  to  this  effect. 

AVheatly  (on  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  vi.,  xxii.)  says: 

The  Prayer  of  Consecration  is  the  most  ancient  and  essential  part  of  the  whole 
Communion  Office;  and  there  are  some  who  believe  that  the  apostles  themselves, 
after  a  suitable  introduction,  used  the  latter  part  of  it,  from  those  words,  who  in  the 
sarrie  night,  etc.,  and  it  is  certain  that  no  liturgy  in  the  world  hath  altered  that  par- 
ticular. But  besides  this,  there  was  always  inserted  in  the  primitive  forms  a  par- 
ticular petition  for  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  sacramental  elements, 
which  was  also  continued  in  the  first  liturgy. 

AVheatly  in  his  subsequent  discussion  does  not  call  it  transub- 
stantiation, but  his  description  applies  to  something  very  near 
akin  to  it.  "The  priest  performs  to  God,"  forsooth,  "  the  rep- 
resentative sacrifice  of  the  death  and  passion  of  his  Son,'* 
^vhereas  there  is  no  priest  to  do  any  such  thing,  and  there  is  no 
such  thing  to  be  done. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  Reformed  Churches  there  is  always  a 
recital  of  the  words  of  institution,  but  it  is  alw^ays  preceded  and 
followed  by  prayer  and  thanksgiving;  and  their  divines  draw  no 
distinction  between  the  parts  of  the  service  as  to  what  is  the  es- 
sential form  and  what  are  the  circumstantial  accompaniments. 
They  do  not  commonly  make  any  special  address  to  the  com- 
municants when  distributing  the  elements.  The  Romish  priests 
deny  the  cup  to  the  laity;  they  step  around  to  the  communicants 
who  are  kneeling  near  the  altar,  take  a  "host"  out  of  a  chalice, 


Design^  Subjects,  Matter,  Form,  Efficacy. 


419 


and  give  one  to  each  saying:  Corpus  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi 
custodiat  aninam  tuam  in  vitam  eternam. 

In  the  Lutheran  Church,  after  the  consecration  of  the  bread 
and  wine,  the  minister  puts  a  "host"  into  the  communicant's 
mouth,  saying:  "Take,  eat:  this  is  the  body  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ;  may  it  strengthen  and  preserve  you  in 
the  true  faith  unto  life  everlasting.  Amen."  And  so  in  giving 
the  cup:  "Take,  drink:  this  is  the  blood,"  etc. 

The  Church  of  England  has  a  complicated  service,  but  it  is 
not  superstitious.  The  prayer  of  consecration  embodies  the 
words  of  institution,  and  in  giving  the  bread  and  wine  to  the 
communicants  the  minister  says: 

The  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  given  for  thee,  preserve  tliv 
body  and  soul  unto  everlasting  life.  Take  and  eat  this  in  rennembrance  that 
Clirist  died  for  thee,  and  feed  on  him  in  thy  heart  by  faith,  with  thanksgiving. 

The  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  shed  for  thee,  preserve  thy  body 
and  soul  unto  everlasting  life.  Drink  this  in  remembrance  that  Christ's  blood 
was  shed  for  thee,  and  be  thankful. 

The  Methodist  Churches  have  an  abridgment  of  the  English 
ofiBce,  with  a  few  verbal  changes,  retaining  the  Prayer  of  Con- 
secration, and  the  address  to  the  communicants  in  giving  the 
elements. 

The  mode  of  celebrating  the  eucharist  is  not  essential  to  the 
sacrament;  it  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  form.  It  must 
be  done  in  some  way,  but  that  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the 
Church. 

The  apostles  most  likely  communed,  at  the  institution  of  the 
ordinance,  in  a  recumbent  posture,  that  being  common  at  that 
time  in  eating  the  passover,  though  when  that  feast  was  insti- 
tuted it  was  eaten  standing.  This  shows  that  our  Lord  and  his 
disciples  laid  but  little  stress  on  postures  and  gestures. 

The  Lutherans  and  some  others  stand  in  communing.  The 
Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  Baptists,  and  some  others 
sit  during  the  entire  service,  except  that  they  sometimes  stand 
during  the  prayers  and  concluding  doxology  and  benediction. 
The  Puritans  were  violently  opposed  to  kneeling,  as  they  thought 
it  looked  like  the  adoration  of  the  elements. 

The  Anglican  Church  and  its  offshoots,  and  the  Methodist 
Churches,  vary  their  posture  during  the  celebration:  standing 
when  the  Creed  is  rehearsed  and  hymns  are  sung;  kneeling  when 


420 


The  Lord  ^s-supper. 


the  elements  are  received  to  evince  humility,  and  to  show  that 
the  Lord's-supper  is  not  like  an  ordinary  feast;  and  sitting  during 
the  remainder  of  the  service.  This  mode  seems  best  adapted  to 
edification.  But  any  of  the  modes  mentioned  may  be  edifying 
to  those  who  prefer  them. 

Upon  the  whole  it  may  be  concluded  that  the  form  of  the 
Lord's-supper  may  consist  of  the  recital  of  any  words  which  set 
forth  the  nature  and  design  of  the  ordinance;  but  it  is  most  ex- 
pedient to  use  the  words  of  institution  in  connection  with  a 
prayer  of  thanksgiving — thyapiG-ia — which  was  so  prominent  in 
the  celebration  of  this  ordinance  in  the  Primitive  Church  that 
from  it  it  has  received  the  name  of  "  The  Eucharist."  Though 
the  address  to  the  communicants  in  the  distribution  of  the  ele- 
ments is  not  essential  to  the  ordinance,  and  so  is  no  part  of  the 
form,  yet  it  is  solemn  and  edifying,  and  as  such  is  prescribed  by 
our  Church. 

§n.  Efficacy  of  This  Sacrament. 

The  cfficaci'  of  this  sacrament  is  so  set  forth  in  this  article  as 
to  utterly  repudiate  the  opus  operatiim  superstition  of  Eome: 
"It  is  a  sacrament  of  our  redemption  by  Christ's  death,  insomuch 
that  to  such  as  rightly,  worthily,  and  with  faith  receive  the  same, 
the  bread  Avhich  we  break  is  a  partaking  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
and  likewise  the  cup  of  blessing  is  a  partaking  of  the  blood  of 
Christ."  But  lest  any  should  have  any  doubt  in  regard  to  the 
meaning  of  this  clause,  the  English  Keformers  framed  another 
article  ( xxix. )  in  title  and  Avords  as  follows : 

Of  the  Wicked^  which  eat  not  the  Body  of  Christ  in  the  use  of  the  Lord's-supper. 

The  wicked  and  such  as  be  void  of  a  lively  faitli,  although  they  do  carnally 
and  visibly  press  with  their  teeth  (as  St.  Augustin  saith)  the  sacrament  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  yet  in  nowise  are  they  partakers  of  Christ;  l»ut  ratlier,  to 
their  condemnation,  do  eat  and  drink  the  sign  or  sacrament  of  so  great  a  thing. 

Other  passages  of  a  similar  import  are  found  in  Augustin' s 
writings,  and  in  those  of  Origen,  Zeno,  Jerome,  and  others;  and 
as  Burnet  says: 

To  all  this  a  great  deal  maybe  added  to  show  that  this  was  the  doctrine  of  the 
Greek  Church,  even  after  Damascene's  opinion  concerning  the  assumption  of  the 
elements  into  a  union  with  tlie  body  of  Christ  was  received  among  them.  But 
more  need  not  be  said  concerning  this,  since  it  will  be  readily  granted  that,  if  we 
are  in  the  right  in  the  main  point  of  denying  the  corporeal  presence,  this  will  fall 
with  it. 

Of  course;  and  hence  Burnet  devotes  less  than  two  pages  to 


Design,  Subjects,  Matter,  Form,  Efficacy. 


421 


the  discussion  of  this  Twenty-uinth  Article,  and  Wesley  elimi- 
nated the  article  from  our  Confession. 

The  efficacy  of  this  sacrament  is  wholly  of  a  spiritual  char- 
acter. Objectively,  all  may  be  right  in  the  sacrament;  subject- 
ively, all  may  be  wrong.  The  ejfhcacy  depends  upon  God's  bless- 
ing accompanying  the  reception  of  the  elements,  "rightly, 
worthily,  and  with  faith,"  and,  as  is  stated  in  the  third  paragraph 
of  this  article,  "  the  means  whereby  the  body  of  Christ  is  received 
and  eaten  in  the  Supper,  is  faith." 

This  is  eminently  the  sacrament  of  faith.  AYe  come  to  it  with 
faith,  and  our  faith  is  vronderfuily  increased  in  this  ordinance. 
The  least  iiiodiciDU  of  faith  which  warrants  an  approach  to  the 
Lord's  table  is  a  belief  in  the  points  concerning  Christ  contained 
in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  such  a  "discerning  of  the  Lord's 
body  "  in  the  ordinance  as  implies  a  recognition  of  the  elements 
as  "a  sacrament  of  our  redemption  by  Christ." 

The  Lord's-supper  is  thus  a  monumental  service:  a  standing 
evidence  of  the  great  fact  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins.  We 
have  the  strongest  historical  proofs — proofs  which  no  one  will 
challenge— that  the  Lord's-supper  has  been  celebrated  ever  since 
the  time  of  its  institution. 

For  from  tliat  night,  successive  bands 

Have  kept  tliis  banquet  of  the  cross, 
Saint,  pilgrim,  martyr  of  all  lands, 

And  counted  eartlily  portions  loss. 

As  the  Passover  was  a  monument  of  the  redemption  of  Israel 
from  Egypt,  so  the  eucharist  is  a  monument  of  our  redemption 
by  Christ,  momnnentum  cere  perenmus.  If  Christ  did  not  die  for 
our  sins,  would  this  monument  have  been  raised?  Were'  the 
apostles  devoid  of  reason?  Have  their  successors  for  eighteen 
centuries  been  similarly  bereft?  Such  must  be  the  case  if  this 
ordinance  has  been  celebrated  in  memory  of  Christ's  death 
through  all  these  centuries,  and  yet  Christ  did  not  die  for  our 
•  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures.  But  this  ordinance  is  "  a  per- 
petual memory  of  that  his  precious  death  until  his  coming  again." 

"Who  thus  our  faitli  employ 

His  sufferings  to  record,  * 
E'en  now  we  mournfully  enjoy 

Communion  with  our  Lord; 
As  though  we  every  one 

Beneath  his  cross  had  t^tood. 


422 


The  LonVS'Supper. 


And  seen  him  heave,  and  heard  him  groan, 
And  felt  his  gushing  blood. 

Our  faith  lifts  the  veil  of  time,  and  places  us,  with  the  three 
Marys  and  the  beloved  disciple,  near  the  cross,  and 

By  faith  his  head  we  see  him  bow 
And  hear  him  breathe  his  last. 

Thus  our  faith,  which  makes  this  to  us  *'a  sacrament  of  our 
redemption  by  Christ's  death,"  is  wonderfully  increased  and 
strengthened  in  this  symbolical  servdce. 

If  we  are  duly  exercised  at  the  Lord's  table,  our  faith  will  not 
only  clearly  apprehend  the  fact  and  design  of  the  Saviour's 
death,  but  it  will  also  appropriate  the  merits  thereof  to  our  own 
personal  salvation.  We  not  only  see  the  elements  broken  and 
poured  forth  and  distributed,  but  we  put  forth  our  hands,  take  of 
them,  eat  and  drink  and  assimilate  them,  so  that  they  enter  into 
our  living,  personal  organism.  Thus  every  communicant  is  ad- 
dressed at  the  distribution  of  the  elements:  "The  body  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  .  .  .  the  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
which  was  given,  which  was  shed  for  thee,  preserve  thy  soul  and 
body  unto  everlasting  life.  Take  and  eat  this;  drink  this,  in  re- 
membrance that  Christ  died  for  thee,  and  feed  on  him  in  thy 
heart  by  faith  with  thanksgiving." 

This  is  a  personal,  experimental  application  of  the  merits  of 
Christ's  death:  the  only  way  in  which  we  can  eat  his  body  and 
drink  his  blood,  and  have  communion  with  him.  The  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  our  redemption  by  Christ  is  applied  in  this  ordinance, 
and  by  a  worthy  participation  thereof  we  realize  our  interest  in 
the  same. 

To  this  dear  covenant  of  thy  word 

I  set  ray  worthless  name; 
I  seal  the  engagement  to  my  Lord, 

And  make  my  humble  claim. 

Thy  light,  and  strength,  and  pardoning  grace, 

And  glory,  shall  be  mine; 
My  life  and  soul,  my  heart  and  flesh, 

And  all  ray  powers  are  thine. 

"It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth  jiothing." 
(John  vi.  63.)  Though  our  Lord's  discourse  at  Capernaum,  in 
which  these  words  occur,  ]iad  no  reference  to  the  eucharist, 
which  was  not  yet  instituted,  yet  the  eucharist  has  reference  to 
that  or  is  illustrated  thereby.    "I  am  the  bread  of  life:  he  that 


Design^  Subjects^  Matter^  Form,  Efficacy. 


423 


Cometh  to  me  shall  never  hunger,  and  he  that  believeth  on  me 
shall  never  thirst."  That  settles  the  question.  We  come  to 
Christ  by  faith;  we  believe  on  him,  and  so  obtain  "eternal  life." 
"  He  that  eateth  me,  even  he  shall  live  by  me." 

This  sacrament,  as  it  vividly  sets  forth  the  object  of  faith,  so  it 
assists  in  its  exercise,  in  laying  hold  on  the  thing  signified,  and 
is  thus  not  only  "  an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  an  inward  and 
spiritual  grace,"  bat  also  "  a  means  whereby  we  receive  the  same, 
and  a  pledge  to  assure  us  thereof." 

The  sacred,  true,  effectual  sign, 

Thy  body  and  thy  blood  it  shows; 
The  glorious  instrument  divine 

Thy  mercy  and  thy  strength  bestows. 

But  "  it  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth."  Hence  the  necessity 
of  invoking  his  influence  when  entering  upon  this  solemn  service: 

Come,  Holy  Ghost,  set  to  thy  seal. 

Thine  inward  witness  give, 
To  all  our  waiting  souls  reveal 

The  death  by  which  we  live. 

Then  our  faith  passes  from  a  mere  assent  to  an  historical  fact, 
which  is  attested  in  the  Lord's-supper;  to  a  realizing,  appropri- 
ating factor,  a  vital  and  vitalizing  element  in  our  experience, 
according  to  the  prayer  of  the  poet: 

O  that  our  faith  may  never  move, 
But  stand  unshaken  as  thy  love: 
Some  evidence  of  things  unseen. 
Now  let  it  pass  the  years  between, 
And  view  thee  bleeding  on  the  tree. 
My  God,  who  dies  for  me,  for  me! 

Whatever  increases  our  faith  confirms  our  hope.  This  sacra- 
ment has  reference  to  the  future  as  well  as  to  the  past.  "For  as 
often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the 
Lord's  death  till  he  come."  (1  Cor.  xi.  26.)  Thus  it  recognizes 
him  as  "delivered  for  our  offenses,  and  raised  again  for  our  jus- 
tification" (Eom.  iv.  25);  as  "ever  living  to  make  interces- 
sion for  us"  (Heb.  vii.  25);  and  as  "coming  again  to  receive  us 
unto  himself,  that  where  he  is  we  may  be  also,"  as  he  assured 
his  disciples,  wdien  he  instituted  this  sacrament  (John  xiv. 
1-6).  "Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many;  and 
unto  them  that  look  for  him  shall  he  appear  the  second  time 
without  sin  unto  salvation."    (Heb.  ix.  28.) 


424: 


TJie  Lord's-supper. 


This  ordinance  would  indeed  deserve  to  be  ranked  with  "  beg- 
garly elements  "  if  it  did  not  refer  to  Christ  as  dying  for  our 
sins  according  to  the  Scriptures;  buried  and  raised  again  the 
third  day,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  thus  "  become  the 
first-fruits  of  them  that  slept,"  the  sure  and  certain  guarantee 
of  "  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the  life  of  the  world  to 
come."    Thus  at  "giving  the  bread"  we  sing: 

Who  in  these  lower  parts 

Of  thy  great  kingdom  feast, 
We  feel  the  earnest  in  our  hearts 

Of  our  eternal  rest. 

Yet  still  a  higher  seat 

We  in  thy  kingdom  claim, 
Who  here  begin  by  faith  to  eat 

The  supper  of  the  Lamb 

And  at  "giving  the  cup: " 

The  fruit  of  the  vine — The  joy  it  implies — 
Again  we  shall  join  To  drink  in  the  skies. 
Exult  in  his  favor,  Our  triumph  renew. 
And  I,  saith  the  Saviour,  Will  drink  it  with  you! 

The  festal  character  of  this  ordinance  is  admirably  adapted, 
and  was  divinely  designed,  to  excite  and  confirm  our  hope.  At 
such  a  banquet  as  this  there  is  no  room  for  doubt  and  fear  and 
diffidence  and  despondency  and  gloom. 

Let  us  indulge  a  cheerful  frame. 
For  joy  becomes  a  feast. 

How  pregnantly  is  this  suggested  by  the  very  elements  used 
in  the  Lord's-supper: 

With  living  bread  and  generous  wine, 
He  cheers  this  sinking  heart  of  mine. 

"  Wine  that  maketh  glad  the  heart  of  man,  and  bread  which 
strengtheneth  man's  heart."  (Ps.  civ.  15.)  How  prominently 
is  this  feature  of  the  sacrament  brought  out  in  our  eucharistic 
service! 

As  this  sacrament  is  designed  and  adapted  to  increase  our 
faith,  and  confirm  our  hope,  so  also  is  it  designed  and  adapted 
to  perfect  our  love.  It  is  in  the  highest  sense  a  feast  of  love. 
The  primitive  Christians  crowned  and  closed  their  agapm,  or 
love-feasts,  with  the  Lord's-supper.  This  was  well  and  wisely 
done.    Their  love  to  the  Saviour  being  thus  inflamed  and 


Design^  Subjects,  Matter,  Form,  Efficacy. 


425 


strengthened,  they  could  not  fail  to  love  one  another  with  a  pure 
heart  fervently. 

When  we  look  upon  the  portrait  of  a  friend  and  benefactor, 
our  gratitude  is  excited,  and  we  cannot  refrain  from  expressions 
of  warm  affection.  This  sacrament  is  a  memorial  of  Christ;  a 
"picture  of  his  passion."  It  reminds  us  of  him;  it  brings  him 
to  our  view  in  the  most  affecting  passage  of  his  history,  in  his 
death,  his  violent,  shameful,  agonizing  death;  his  propitiatory, 
vicarious  death;  the  death  which  he  endured  for  us;  the  death 
by  which  we  live,  for  he  laid  down  his  life  for  us.  Nothing  so 
vividly  reminds  us  of  the  great  love  wherewith  he  loved  us,  and 
our  obligation  to  love  him  in  return,  as  this  "  sacrament  of  our 
redemption  by  his  death."  Hence  the  Church  appropriately 
begins  this  service  with  confession  of  sins,  and  closes  it  with 
thanksgiving  for  the  "remission  of  our  sins,  and  all  other  bene- 
fits of  his  passion."  And  in  view  of  his  atoning  sacrifice,  thus 
symbolized  in  the  sacrament,  and  realized  by  faith,  we  unite  in 
the  solemn  dedication  of  ourselves  to  him  in  return  for  his  amaz- 
ing love.  "And  here  we  offer  and  present  unto  thee,  O  Lord, 
ourselves,  our  souls  and  bodies,  to  be  a  reasonable,  holy,  and 
lively  sacrifice  unto  thee."  Like  some  of  the  Psalms,  it  is  de- 
signed "to  bring  to  remembrance." 

While  yet  liis  anguished  soul  surveyed 

Those  pangs  he  would  not  flee, 
"What  love  liis  latest  words  displayed — 

"Meet  and  remember  me!" 

Where  all  the  three.theological  virtues — faith,  hope,  and  love — 
are  thus  developed  and  brought  into  harmonious  exercise,  noth- 
ing can  be  absent  which  is  necessary  to  complete  the  Christian 
character.    It  is  in  this  sense  that 

This  eucharistic  feast 

Our  every  want  supplies, 
And  still  we  by  his  death  are  blest. 

And  share  his  sacrifice; 
By  faith  his  flesh  we  eat, 

AVho  here  his  passion  show; 
And  God,  out  of  his  holy  seat. 

Shall  all  his  gifts  bestow. 


CHAPTER  II. 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

The  second  paragraph  in  this  article  reads  thus: 

Transubstantiation,  or  the  change  of  the  substance  of  bread  and  wine  in  the 
Supper  of  the  Lord,  cannot  be  proved  by  Holy  Writ,  but  is  repugnant  to  the  plain 
words  of  Scripture,  overthrowetli  the  nature  of  a  sacrament,  and  hath  given  occa- 
sion to  many  superstitions.  ^ 

§  1.  Addition  in  King  Edward's  Article. 

In  the  article  as  set  forth  in  the  reign  of  Edward  YI.  there 
was  this  additional  paragraph  against  transubstantiation: 

Forasmuch  as  the  truth  of  man's  nature  requireth  that  the  body  of  one  and  the 
self-same  man  cannot  be  at  one  time  in  divers  places,  but  must  needs  be  in  one 
certain  place,  therefore  the  body  of  Christ  cannot  be  present  at  one  time  in  many 
and  divers  jjlaces;  and  because,  as  Holy  Scripture  doth  teach,  Christ  was  taken  up 
into  heaven,  and  there  shall  continue  unto  the  end  of  the  world;  a  faithful  man 
ought  not  either  to  believe  or  openly  confess  the  real  and  bodily  presence,  as  they 
term  it,  of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's-supper. 

Burnet  suggests  that  this  was  omitted  when  the  articles  were 
revised  under  Elizabeth,  lest  the  rejection  of  the  "real  presence" 
might  offend  some  "in  whom  the  old  leaven  had  gone  deep;" 
and  because  it  "went  too  much  upon  the  principles  of  natural 
philosophy,  which  how  true  soever,  they  might  not  be  the  proper 
subject  of  an  article  of  religion."  But  he  says  the  original  sub- 
scription by  both  Houses  of  Convocation  shows  that  the  revisers 
included  this  paragraph,  though,  for  the  reasons  assigned, 
they  thought  it  expedient  to  correct  it  and  print  the  following 
paragraph  in  its  stead:  "The  body  of  Christ  is  given,  taken,  and 
eaten  in  the  Supper,  only  after  a  heavenly  and  spiritual  manner. 
And  the  means  whereby  the  body  of  Christ  is  received  and  eaten 
in  the  Supper  is  faith." 

The  paragraph  in  question  may  have  been  omitted  from  undue 
regard  to  the  Lutheran  believers  in  Consubstantiation;  but 
surely  its  omission  would  not  reconcile  the  Eomish  believers  in 
transubstantiation  to  the  article,  seeing  it  is  leveled  directly  and 
in  so  many  words  against  that  absurd  dogma. 
(426) 


Tmnsuhstant'iation. 


4:27 


§  2.  The  Tridentine  Doctrine. 

But  let  us  see  what  is  the  dogma  of  tran substantiation,  as  held 
by  the  Church  of  Eome.  The  Council  of  Trent  (Ses.  xiii.  ch.  i.) 
says: 

In  the  first  place  the  lioly  Synod  teaches,  and  openly  and  simply  professes, 
that,  in  the  august  sacrament  of  the  holy  eucharist,  after  the  consecration  of  the 
bread  and  wine,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  true  God  and  true  man,  is  truly,  really, 
and  substantially  contained  under  the  species  of  those  sensible  things.  For  neither 
are  these  things  mutually  repugnant— that  our  Saviour  himself  always  sitteth 
at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  in  heaven,  according  to  the  natural  mode  of  ex- 
isting, and  that  nevertheless  he  be,  in  many  other  places,  sacramentally  present 
to  us  in  his  own  substance  by  a  manner  of  existing,  which,  though  we  can  scarcely 
express  it  in  words,  yet  can  we,  by  the  understanding  illuminated  by  faith,  con- 
ceive, and  we  ought  most  firmly  to  believe,  to  be  possible  unto  God:  for  thus  all 
our  forefiithers,  as  many  as  were  in  the  true  Church  of  Christ,  who  have  treated 
of  this  most  holy  sacrament,  have  most  openly  professed  that  our  Redeemer  in- 
stituted this  so  admirable  a  sacrament  at  the  last  supper  when,  after  the  blessing 
of  the  bread  and  wine,  he  testified,  in  express  and  clear  words,  that  he  gave  them 
his  own  very  body  and  his  own  blood,  words  which — recorded  by  the  holy  evan- 
gelist, and  afterward  repeated  by  St.  Paul,  whereas  they  carry  with  them  that 
proper  and  most  manifest  meaning  in  which  they  were  understood  by  the  Fathers 
—it  is  indeed  a  crime  the  most  unworthy  that  they  should  be  wrested,  by  certain 
contentious  and  wicked  men,  to  fictitious  and  imaginary  tropes,  whereby  the  verity 
of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ  is  denied,  contrary  to  the  universal  sense  of  the 
Church,  which,  as  the  pillar  and  ground  of  tmth,  has  detested,  as  Satanical,  these  in- 
ventions devised  by  impious  men ;  she  recognizing,  with  a  mind  ever  grateful  and 
unforgetting,  the  most  excellent  benefit  of  Christ.* 

Transubstantiation  therefore  means  this:  When  the  priest 
pronounces  what  Dr.  Henry  More  calls  the  "  quinque- verbal 
charm"  (these  five  words,  Hoc  enim  est  corpus  metim,  "for  this  is 
my  body  ")  the  wafer  is  no  longer  wheaten  flour  and  water,  but 
a  whole  living  man,  with  all  his  flesh  and  all  his  blood;  yea,  and 
Christ's  soul  and  divinity  too :  a  perfect  man  and  a  perfect  God. 
Hence  the  worship  of  latria^  which  Eomanists  say  is  to  be  offered 
to  God  alone,  is  to  be  paid  to  the  host,  or  consecrated  w^afer,  as 
the  Council  of  Trent  expresses  it  (Ses.  xiii.  ch.  v.):  Latrice  cuU 
fiintf  qui  vera  Deo  dehetur. 

Surely  the  force  of  error  and  the  debasement  of  superstition 
and  idolatry  can  no  farther  go. 

*  The  text  of  this  passage,  Avhich  Dr.  Summers  indicated  but  did  not  transcribe, 
I  have  taken  from  Schaflf's  "  Creeds  of  Christendom,"  Vol.  II.,  pp.  126, 127,  Avhere 
the  Latin  may  also  be  consulted.  Compare  the  teaching  set  forth  in  the  "Cate- 
chism of  the  Council  of  Trent,"  p.  161.— T. 


428 


The  Lord's-supper. 


As  there  is  not  the  slightest  intimation  of  this  dogma  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  as  it  contradicts  our  senses  and  reason,  it  may 
well"  be  asked  how  it  ever  was  made  an  article  of  faith  in  the 
Eomish  Church. 

§  3.  Romish  Proofs  from  Scripture  Considered. 

As  a  matter  of  course  Komish  divines  claim  scriptural  warrant 
for  transubstantiation.    Does  not  Christ  say,  "  This  is  my  body," 

This  is  my  blood  ?  "  He  does ;  but  does  not  every  sensible  child 
know  ihoi  the  verb  fs,  in  Scripture,  and  also  in  the  common  lan- 
guage of  all  people,  often  means  represents  ?  "  The  seven  good  kine 
are  seven  years ;  and  the  seven  good  ears  are  seven  years."  ( Gen. 
xli.  26. )  Was  ever  anybody  so  stupid  as  to  suppose  that  the  cows 
and  ears  of  corn  which  Pharoah  saw  in  his  dream  were  really 
years?  The  verb  are^  as  everybody  knows,  means  represent.  So 
of  the  paschal  lamb  it  is  said  (Ex.  xii.  11.):  "It  is  the  Lord's 
passover."  Does  not  everybody  know  that  it  was  not  the  Pass- 
over itself,  but  a  memento  of  it,  and  so  called  by  its  name?  So 
of  "the  mystery"  (or  sacrament,  as  Romanists  render  it)  of  the 
seven  stars  and  the  seven  golden  candlesticks,  it  is  said  (Rev.  i. 
20):  "  The  seven  stars  are  the  angels  of  the  seven  Churches;  and 
the  seven  candlesticks  are  the  seven  Churches."  Was  John  so 
stupid  as  to  imagine  that  they  were  any  thing  but  representatives 
of  the  angels  and  the  Churches?  When  a  child  is  pointed  to  the 
picture  of  his  father,  and  he  exclaims,  "That  is  my  papa!"  did 
ever  any  one  suppose  that  he  was  so  stupid  as  to  imagine  that  it 
was  anything  but  a  representation  of  his  father?  and  especially 
if  his  father  is  present,  pointing  him  to  the  picture  ?  Had  not  the 
apostles  sense  enough  to  know  that  Jesus  could  not  mean  that  the 
bread  and  wine  was  any  thing  more  than  a  representation  of 
himself,  as  he  was  there  present,  holding  it  in  his  hands,  distrib- 
uting it  to  them  ?  How  could  he  hold  himself  in  his  own  hands — 
body,  blood,  soul,  and  divinity — and  give  his  whole  self  to  every 
one  of  the  apostles  to  be  eaten  by  every  one  of  them?  They 
knew  very  well  that  he  meant,  "This  represents  my  body  and 
blood,"  which  they  were  to  eat  and  drink  in  remembrance  of  him. 
If  it  were  he  himself,  the  elements  would  not  be  a  memento  of 
him,  as  he  says  they  are. 

Their  reason  told  them  that  it  was  only  a  representation,  not 
a  reality,  and  their  senses  confirmed  the  judgment  of  their  rea- 


Transiibstantiatiou. 


429 


son.  They  saw  and  heard  the  Saviour  in  their  presence,  speak- 
ing to  them.  They  saw,  heard,  touched,  smelted,  and  tasted  the 
elements,  and  knew  very  well  that  they  were  not  flesh,  blood, 
bones,  soul,  and  divinity.  They  knew  very  well  that  they  were 
not  cannibals;  they  had  never  eaten  the  blood  of  beasts,  much 
less  of  a  man,  and  as  to  eating  a  soul  and  a  God,  the  preposterous 
and  profane  conception  never  entered  their  minds.  They  saw 
and  heard  Jesus,  and  knew  that  they  were  not  eating  him.  They 
apprehended  the  bread  and  wine  by  all  their  senses,  and  knew 
very  well  it  was  nothing  else  which  they  ate  and  drank.  But  it 
is  said  the  senses  often  deceive  us.  They  do  deceive  us  some- 
times, but  then  we  employ  our  senses  to  correct  the  deception. 
To  the  sight  the  artificial  flower  seems  to  be  a  real  flower;  but, 
brought  to  the  test  of  the  senses  of  smell,  touch,  hearing,  and 
taste,  it  is  instantly  perceived  that  it  is  but  the  representation  of 
a  flower.  So  of  a  thousand  other  things.  Our  flve  senses  are 
given  us  for  the  express  purpose  of  putting  us  in  a  real,  truthful 
relation  with  the  external  world — not  to  deceive  us. 

When  our  Lord  wrought  his  miracles,  including  his  own  res- 
urrection, he  appealed  to  the  senses  of  men  for  a  verification  of 
his  miracles:  "Go  and  show  John  again  those  things  which  ye 
do  hear  and  see:  the  blind  receive  their  sight,  and  the  lame 
walk,"  etc.  (Matt.  xi.  4,  5);  "Reach  hither  thy  finger  and  behold 
my  hands,  and  reach  hither  thy  hand  and  thrust  it  into  my  side, 
and  be  not  faithless,  but  believing"  (John  xx.  27).  But  what 
would  be  the  use  of  all  this,  if  we  could  not  depend  upon  the  tes- 
timony of  our  senses?  In  fact  we  could  not  live  a  day  without 
depending  upon  their  testimony. 

If,  therefore,  the  great  miracle  of  tran substantiation  had  been 
performed  when  Christ  said,  "This  is  my  body,"  it  must  have 
been  cognizable  to  the  senses,  as  that  is  the  only  way  in  which 
a  miracle  can  be  verified.  But  this  pretended  miracle  contra- 
dicts all  the  senses  at  once,  as  well  as  the  common  sense  and 
reason.  When  the  water  was  changed  into  wine  the  tran  substan- 
tiation was  cognizable  by  the  senses:  those  who  drew  it  and 
saw  it  and  smelled  it  and  tasted  it  knew  it  was  not  water,  but 
wine,  and  they  pronounced  it  a  genuine  and  .good  article.  So 
in  the  eucharist  the  apostles  knew^  that  what  they  drank  was  not 
blood,  but  wine — the  juice  of  the  grape,  the  fruit  of  the  vine. 
They  knew  too  that  what  they  ate  was  not  flesh,  but  bread 


430 


The  Lord^S'Supper. 


Hence  they  always  spoke  of  breaking  bread,  not  eating  flesh,  in 
this  ordinance;  and  of  drinking  wine  or  the  cup  (by  metonomy  of 
the  container  for  the  contained),  of  which  some  of  the  Corin- 
thians drank  so  freely  as  to  be  drunken  with  it —an  effect  which 
never  follows  from  the  drinking  of  blood.  The  cup  of  blessing 
in  the  Passover  was  a  cup  of  wine,  and  it  is  the  same  in  the  eu- 
charist.  Thus  the  apostle  speaks,  ov^r  and  over  again:  "For  as 
often  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the 
Lord's  death  till  he  come;"  "wherefore  whosoever  shall  eat 
this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be 
guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord; "  "but  let  a  man  ex- 
amine himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread* and  drink  of  that 
cup."    (ICor.  xi.) 

The  apostles  held  that  Christ  had  taken  his  body  and  soul  to 
heaven,  and  that  there  he  must  remain  till  the  times  of  the  resti- 
tution of  all  things.  (Acts  iii.  21.)  As  we  have  it  in  the  Creed, 
"He  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God 
the  Fatlier  Almighty;  from  thence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the 
quick  and  the  dead."  The  apostles  were  not  scientists,  but  they 
had  sense  enough  to  know  that  one  and  the  same  finite  being,  as 
is  Christ's  humanity,  cannot  be  in  more  places  than  one  at  the 
same  time.  If  he  was  in  heaven,  then  he  could  not  be  at  the  same 
time  in  a  million  places  on  the  earth.  They  knew  too  that  a  whole 
is  greater  than  its  parts,  and  consequently  that  every  crumb  of  the 
bread  and  every  drop  of  the  wine  could  not  by  any  mircle  be 
equal  to  the  whole  loaf  and  the  entire  cup;  yet  Papists  affirm 
that  in  every  particle  of  the  host  and  chalice  the  whole  of  Christ 
is  contained,  or  rather  that  every  particle  is  the  whole  of  Christ 
— body,  blood,  soul,  and  divinity.  The  apostles  never  in  all  their 
writings  intimate  the  preposterous,  unphilosophical  conceit  that 
the  species,  or  accidents,  of  bread  and  wine  may  remain,  while 
the  substance  is  utterly  changed.  On  the  contrary,  they  main- 
tain that  the  substance  does  remain,  and  they  know  that  it  does 
by  the  permanence  of  the  species,  and  by  their  natural  prop- 
erties and  potential  effects.  The  bread  looks,  feels,  smells,  sounds, 
tastes  like  bread,  and  may  be  eaten  moderately  to  the  nourish- 
ment of  the  body, .or  immoderately  to  gluttony;  that  the  wine 
looks,  feels,  smells,  sounds,  tastes  like  wine,  and  may  be  drunk  / 
moderately  to  refreshment,  or  immoderately  to  drunkenness,  as 
was  the  case  with  the  unworthy  communicants  in  the  Corinthian 


Transubstantiation. 


431 


Church.  Any  animal  might  eat  and  drink  the  elements,  and  the 
result  would  be  just  the  same  as  if  he  ate  the  same  amount  of 
ordinary  bread  and  wine.  Kept  for  a  certain  length  of  time,  and 
exposed,  the  bread,  like  any  other  bread,  would  become  moldy, 
the  wine  sour  or  evaporated,  which  could  not  be  the  case  if  the 
bread  and  wine  were  changed  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
which  cannot  see  corruption,  as  the  Scriptures  assure  us. 

The  apostles  understood  the  Lord's-supper  to  be  a  sacrament 
(though  they  never  use  that  word),  that  is,  an  outward  and  visible 
sign  of  something  infinitely  higher  than  itself;  and  they  had 
sense  enough  to  know  that  it  could  not  be  that  which  it  signified. 
Hence  the  article  is  correct  in  saying  that  "transubstantiation 
cannot  be  proved  by  Holy  Writ,  bat  is  repugnant  to  the  plain 
words  of  Scripture,  overthroweth  the  nature  of  a  sacrament,  and 
hath  given  occasion  to  many  superstitions." 

§  4.  Patristic  Proofs. 

But  if  Scripture  afibrds  no  support  to  this  dogma,  the  Roman- 
ists are  very  confident  that  the  Fathers  do.  "We  quote  from  the 
Boman  Catechism: 

Let  St.  Ambrose  first  declare  his  faith.  In  his  book  on  "Tlie  Initiated"  lie 
says  that  the  same  true  body  of  our  Lord,  "which  was  assumed  of  the  Virgin,  is 
received  in  this  sacrament ;  a  truth  which  he  declares  is  to  be  believed  with  the 
certainty  of  faith:  and  in  another  place  he  distinctly  tells  us  that  before  conse- 
cration it  is  bread,  and  after  consecration  it  is  the  llesh  of  Christ.  St.  Chrysostom, 
another  witness  of  equal  fidelity  and  weight,  professes  and  proclaims  this  myste- 
rious truth,  particularly  in  his  sixtieth  homily  on  those  Avho  receive  the  sacred 
mysteries  unworthily;  and  also  in  his  fofty-fourth  and  forty-fifth  homilies  on  St. 
John.  "  Let  us,"  says  he,  "obey,  not  contradict  God,  although  what  he  says  may 
seem  contrary  to  our  reason  and  our  sight;  his  words  cannot  deceive,  our  senses 
are  easily  deceived."  "With  the  doctrine  thus  taught  by  St.  Chrysostom  that  uni- 
formly taught  by  St.  Augustin  fully  accords,  particularly  when  in  his  explanation 
of  the  thirty-third  Psalm  he  says:  "To  carry  himself  in  his  own  hands  is  impos- 
sible to  man,  and  peculiar  to  Christ  alone;  he  was  carried  in  his  own  hands  when, 
giving  his  body  to  be  eaten,  he  said,  'This  is  my  body.' "  To  pass  by  Justin  and 
Irenseus,  St.  Cyril,  in  his  Fourth  Book  on  St.  John,  declares  in  such  express  terms 
that  the  body  of  our  Lord  is  contained  in  this  sacrament  that  no  sophistry  can 
distort,  no  captious  interpretations  obscure,  his  meaning.  Should  the  pastor  wish 
for  additional  testimonies  of  the  Fathers,  he  will  find  it  easy  to  add  the  Hilaries, 
the  Jeromes,  the  Denises,  the  Damascenes,  and  a  host  of  other  illustrious  names, 
whose  sentiments  on  this  most  important  subject  he  will  find  collected  by  the 
labor  and  industry  of  men  eminent  for  piety  and  learning. 

To  all  thi3  we  reply,  first,  by  concession.    The  Fathers  did  use 


432 


The  Lord^S'Sup]oer. 


language  concerning  this  sacrament  which  might  very  well  be 
used  by  those  who  believe  in  transubstantiation. 

But  what  if  they  did  ?  Suppose  they  had  used  the  very  word, 
which  they  did  not,  and  affirmed  the  doctrine  in  plain  language, 
as  in  the  Eoman  Catechism,  Avhich  was  not  the  case,  it  would 
have  been  all  the  worse  for  them,  and  none  the  better  for  the 
doctrine  or  its  assertors.  We  have  elsewhere  shown  that  the 
Fathers  erred  in  many  things  most  egregiously.  At  one  time 
they  nearly  all  indorsed  the  heresy  of  the  corporeal  reign  of 
Christ  on  the  earth  for  a  thousand  years,  and  the  wild  vagaries 
connected  with  that  delusion.  They  nearly  all  held  superstitious 
notions  of  baptism,  both  with  regard  to  its  mode  and  efficacy, 
and  some  of  the  chief  of  them,  notably  Augustin,  relegated  all 
unbaptized  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  to  hell.  This  Father,  in- 
deed, wrote  a  book  of  Eetractations,  in  which  he  canceled  many 
of  his  opinions.  Then  they  warred  against  each  other  on  almost 
all  questions,  just  as  polemics  of  various  communions  do  now. 

Then,  again,  they  wrote  in  an  inexact,  rhetorical  style,  tumid, 
obscure,  and  loose.  It  is  hard  to  tell  what  their  views  really  were. 
One  does  not  know  how  to  reduce  to  plain  English  the  paradoxes 
and  strained  metaphors  of  which  they  were  so  fond,  and  in  which 
they  indulged  with  so  much  license  when  discoursing  on  the  sac- 
raments. 

It  is  further  to  be  noted  that  when  there  was  no  special  ne- 
cessity for  the  use  of  guarded  language — as  in  meditations; 
prayers,  hymns,  and  the  like — it  was  natural  for  them  to  indulge 
in  mystic  expressions  and  warm  metai^hors.  Even  our  Occi- 
dental writers,  who  are  comparatively  cold  and  tame,  do  this. 
No  one  expects  to  find  the  precision  of  a  Creed  or  Catechism  in 
a  liturgy  or  hymnal.  Is  any  one  so  absurd  as  to  imagine  that 
the  two  well-known  independent  divines,  AVatts  and  Doddridge, 
believed  in  transubstantiation,  or  the  real  corporeal  presence  in 
any  sense?  Yet  hear  how  they  sing.  "Watts,  in  his  hymns  for 
the  Lord's-supper,  abounds  in  passages  like  these: 

For  food  he  gives  liis  flesli ; 
He  bids  us  drink  his  blood. 

This  soul-reviving  wine, 

Dear  Saviour,  is  thy  blood ; 
"VVe  thank  that  sacked  flesh  of  thine 

For  this  immortal  food. 


Transuhstantiation. 


483 


That  sounds  like  the  real  corporeal  presence  and  the  adoration 
of  the  host. 
So  Doddridge: 

Pail,  sacred  feast,  which  Jesus  makes  I 

Rich  banquet  of  his  flesh  and  blood  I 
Thrice  happy  he  who  here  partakes 

Tliat  sacred  stream,  that  heavenly  food. 

We  have  seen  this  cited  by  Komanizers  in  favor  of  the  real 
corporeal  presence. 

And  so  our  own  Wesley: 

We  need  not  now  go  up  to  heaven 

To  bring  the  long-sought  Saviour  down, 

Thou  art  to  all  already  given, 

Thou  dost  e'en  now  thy  banquet  crown: 

To  every  faithful  soul  appear, 

And  sliow  thy  real  presence  here. 

Warm  and  hyperbolic  figures  are  allowed  in  liturgies  and 
hymns,  and  ordinarily  no  one  is  misled  by  them.  For  more  than 
a  century  these  hymns  have  been  sung  by  millions  who  would 
go  to  the  stake  (as  transuhstantiation  is  called  "  the  burning  doc- 
trine," so  many  martyrs  have  been  burned  for  denying  it)  rather 
than  profess  a  dogma  so  blasphemous  and  absurd.  We  shall 
not  allow  our  liberty  to  be  abridged  in  this  respect,  because  pre- 
cisians of  our  own  communion  may  stumble  at  it,  and  Komanizers 
may  try  to  make  capital  out  of  it.  We  will  not,  we  cannot,  Avhen 
engaged  in  the  fervent  exercises  of  religious  worship,  stop  to 
scrutinize  every  expression  and  explain  every  metaphor.  A 
course  of  this  ^ort  would  freeze  the  life  out  of  devotion.  AVhat 
we  really  mean  by  such  language  we  are  always  ready,  when  oc- 
casion occurs,  to  show  to  every  man  that  asketh  us. 

This  leads  us  to  reply  by  opposition.  We  affirm  that  the  Fa- 
thers did  not  believe  in  transuhstantiation;  they  never  used  the 
word,  they  did  not  believe  the  doctrine. 

How  could  Augustin,  e.  cj.,  believe  it  when  he  wrote  as  follows: 

If  any  passage  of  Scripture  seems  to  command  a  crime  or  horrid  action,  it  is 
figurative,  as,  "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  and  drink  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  man, 
ye  have  no  life  in  yon,"  which  seems  to  command  a  crime  and  a  horrid  action; 
and  therefore  it  is  a  figure  commanding  us  to  communicate  in  the  passion  of  our 
Lord,  and  to  lay  up  in  our  memory  Avith  delight  and  profit  that  his  flesh  was  cruci- 
fied and  wounded  for  us.    {De  Sac.  Chris,  iii.  16.) 

How  could  Origen,  the  learned  Father  of  the  Greek  Church, 
28  Vol.  II. 


434 


The  LorcV s-supper. 


believe  it  when  he  said,  "The  understanding  of  our  Saviour's 
words  of  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood,  according  to 
the  letter,  is  a  letter  that  killetft?" 

After  showing  by  extended  presumptive  proofs  that  the  Fa- 
thers believed  no  such  doctrine,  Bishop  Burnet  says: 

So  far  1  have  gone  upon  the  presumptions  that  may  be  offered  to  prove  that 
this  doctrine  was  not  known  to  the  ancients.  They  are  not  only  just  and  lawful 
presumptions,  but  they  are  so  strong  and  violent  that  when  they  are  well  consid- 
ered they  force  an  assent  to  that  which  we  infer  from  them.  I  go  next  to  the  more 
plain  and  direct  proofs  that  we  find  of  the  opinion  of  the  ancients  in  this  matter. 

They  call  the  elements  bread  and  wine  after  the  consecration.  Justin  Martyr 
calls  them  bread  and  wine,  and  a  nourishment  which  nourished'  he  indeed  says  it  is 
not  common  bread  and  loine,  which  shows  that  he  thought  it  was  still  so  in  snl)- 
stance;  and  he  illustrates  the  sanctification  of  the  elements  by  the  incarnation  of 
Christ,  in  which  the  human  nature  did  not  lose  or  change  its  substance  by  its  un- 
ion with  the  divine:  so  the  bread  and  the  wine  do  not,  according  to  that  explana- 
tion, lose  their  proper  substance  when  they  become  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ. 

Irenceus  calls  it  that  bread  over  which  thanks  are  given,  and  says  it  is  no  more  com* 
mon  bread,  but  the  eucharist  consistiwj  of  two  things,  an  earthly  and  a  heavenly. 

Tertullian,  arguing  against  the  Marcionites,  who  held  two  gods,  and  that  the 
Creator  of  this  earth  was  the  bad  god,  but  that  Christ  was  contrary  to  him,  urges 
against  them  this,  that  Christ  made  use  of  the  creatures;  and  says,  he  did  not  re- 
ject bread  by  which  he  represents  his  oim  body;  and  in  another  place  he  says,  Christ 
calls  bread  Ins  body,  that  from  thence  you  may  understand  that  he  gave  the  fgure  oj 
his  body  to  the  bread. 

Origen  says,  We  eat  of  the  loaves  that  are  set  before  us,  which  by  prayer  are  become  a 
certain  holy  body  that  sanctifies  those  ivho  use  them  with  a  sound  purpose. 

St.  Cyprian  says,  Oirist  calls  the  bread  that  was  compounded  of  many  grains  his  body, 
and  the  wine  that  is  pressed  out  of  many  grapes  his  blood,  to  shew  the  union  of  his  people. 
And  in  another  place,  writing  against  those  who  used  only  water,  b'ut  no  wine,  in 
the  eucharist,  he  says,  We  cannot  see  the  blood  by  which  we  are  redeemed,  luhen  ivine 
is  not  in  the  chalice,  by  which  the  blood  is  shewed. 

Epiphanius  being  to  prove  that  man  may  be  said  to  be  made  after  the  image 
of  God,  though  he  is  not  like  him,  urges  this.  That  the  bread  is  not  like  Christ,  neither 
in  his  invisible  Deity,  nor  in  his  incarnate  likeness,  for  it  is  round  and  ivithout  feeling  as 
to  its  virtu£. 

Gregory  Nyssen  says.  The  bread  in  the  beginning  la  common;  but  after  the  mystery 
has  consecrated  it,  it  is  said  to  be,  and  is,  the  body  of  Christ:  to  this  he  compares  the 
sanctification  of  the  mystical  oil,  of  the  water  in  baptism,  and  the  stones  of  an 
altar,  or  church,  dedicated  to  God. 

St.  Ambrose  calls  it  still  bread,  and  says,  this  bread  is  made  the  food  of  the  saints. 

St.  Chrysostom  on  these  words,  the  bread  that  we  break,  says,  What  is  the  bread? 
The  body  of  Christ.  What  are  they  made  to  be  ivho  take  it?  The  body  of  Christ. 
"Which  shows  that  he  considered  the  bread  as  being  so  the  body  of  Christ,  as  the 
worthy  receivers  became  his  body;  which  is  done,  not  by  a  change  of  substance, 
but  by  a  sanctification  of  their  natures. 

St.  Jerome  says,  Christ  took  bread,  that  as  Melchisedee  had  in  the  figure  offered  bread 


T7'ansubsta7itiation. 


435 


and  tvine,  he  might  also  represent  the  truth  (that  is  in  opposition  to  the  figure)  of  his 
body  and  blood. 

St.  Augustin  does  very  largely  compare  the  sacraments  being  called  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  with  those  other  places  in  which  the  Church  is  called  his 
body,  and  all  Christians  are  his  members:  which  shews  that  he  thought  the  one 
was  to  be  understood  mystically  as  well  as  the  other.  He  calls  the  eucharist  fre- 
quently our  daily  bread,  and  the  sacrament  of  bread  and  wine.  All  these  call  the 
eucharist  bread  and  wine  in  express  words:  but  when  they  call  it  Chinst's  body  and 
blood,  they  call  it  so  after  a  sort,  or  that  it  is  said  to  be,  or  with  some  other  mollify- 
ing expression. 

St.  Augustin  says  this  plainly,  After  some  sort  the  sacrament  of  the  body  of  Christ 
is  his  body,  and  the  sacrament  of  his  blood  is  the  blood  of  Christ;  he  carried  himself  in 
his  own  hands  in  some  sort,  when  he  said,  This  is  my  body. 

St.  Chrysostom  says.  The  bread  is  thought  worthy  to  be  called  the  body  of  our  Lord: 
and  in  another  place,  reckoning  up  the  improper  senses  of  the  word  flesh,  he  says, 
the  Scriptures  used  to  call  the  mysteries  (that  is,  the  sacrament)  by  the  name  of  fleshy 
and  sometimes  the  whole  Church  is  said  to  be  the  body  of  Christ. 

vSo  Tertullian  says,  Christ  calls  the  bread  his  body,  and  names  the  bread  by  hui  body. 

The  fathers  do  not  only  call  the  consecrated  elements  bread  and  wine;  they  do 
also  affirm  that  they  retain  their  proper  nature  and  substance,  and  are  the  same 
thing  as  to  their  nature  that  they  were  before.  And  the  occasion  upon  which  the 
passages,  that  I  go  next  to  mention,  are  used  by  them,  does  prove  this  matter  be- 
yond contradiction.  ^ 

Apollinaris  did  broach  that  heresy  which  was  afterward  put  in  full  form  by 
Eutychcs;  and  that  had  so  great  a  party  to  support  it,  that  as  they  had  one  gen- 
eral council  (a  pretended  one  at  least)  to  favor  them,  so  they  were  condemned  by 
another.  Their  error  was  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  was  swallowed  up  by 
the  divine,  if  not  while  he  was  here  on  earth,  yet  at  least  after  his  ascension. to 
heaven.  This  error  was  confuted  by  several  writers  who  lived  very  wide  one 
from  another,  and  at  a  distance  of  above  a  hundred  years  one  from  another.  St. 
Chrysostom  at  Constantinople,  Theodoret  in  Asia,  Ephrem  patriarch  of  Antioch, 
and  Gelasius  bishop  of  Rome.  All  those  write  to  prove  that  the  human  nature 
did  still  remain  in  Christ,  not  changed  nor  swallowed  up,  but  only  sanctified  by 
the  divine  nature  that  was  united  to  it.  They  do  all  fall  into  one  argument, 
which  very  probably  those  who  came  after  St.  Chrysostom  took  from  him:  so  that 
though  both  Theodoret  and  Gelasius's  words  are  much  fuller,  yet  because  the  ar- 
gument is  the  same  with  that  which  St.  Chrysostom  had  urged  against  Apollina- 
ris, I  shall  first  set  down  his  words.  He  brings  an  illustration  from  the  doctrine 
of  the  sacrament  to  show  that  the  human  nature  was  not  destroyed  by  its  union 
with  the  divine,  and  has  upon  that  these  words.  As  before  the  bread  is  sanctified,  we 
call  it  bread,  but  when  the  divine  grace  has  sanctified  it  by  the  means  of  the  priest,  it  is 
freed  from  the  name  of  bread,  and  is  thought  worthy  of  the  name  of  the  Lord's  body,,  though 
the  nature  of  bread  remain  in  it :  and  yet  it  is  not  said  there  are  two  bodies,  but  one  body 
of  the  Son:  so  the  divine  nature  being  joined  to  the  body,  both  these  make  one  Son  and  one 
Person. 

Ephrem  of  Antioch  says.  The  body  of  Christ  received  by  the  faithful  does  not  depart 
from  its  sensible  s^ibstance:  so  baptism,  says  he,  does  not  lose  its  ovm  sensible  substance, 
and  does  not  lose  that  which  it  was  before. 


436 


The  LonVs-supper. 


Theodoret  says,  Clirist  does  honor  tlie  symbols  with  tJie  name  of  hvi  body  and  blood; 
not  changing  the  nature,  but  adding  grace  to  nature.  In  anotlier  place,  pursuing  tlie 
same  argument,  he  says,  The  mystical  symbols  after  the  sanctifmtion  do  'not  depart  from 
their  own  nature:  for  they  continue  in  their  fonner  substance,  figure,  and  form,  and  are 
visible  and  palpable  as  they  were  before,  but  they  are  understood  to  be  tliat  which  they  are 
made. 

Pope  Gelasius  says.  The  sacraments  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  a  divine  thing; 
for  which  reason  we  became  by  them  partakers  of  the  divine  nature:  and  yet  the  substance 
of  bread  and  wine  does  not  cease  to  exist ;  and  the  image  and  likeness  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  are  celebrated  in  holy  mysteries.  Upon  all  these  places  being  compared  with 
the  design  with  which  they  were  written,  which  was  to  prove  that  Christ's  human 
nature  did  still  subsist,  unchanged,  and  not  swallowed  up  by  its  union  with  the  di- 
vinity, some  reflections  are  very  obvious:  first,  if  the  corporal  presence  of  Christ  in 
the  sacrament  had  been  then  received  in  the  Church,  the  natural  and  unavoidable 
argument  in  this  matter,  which  must  put  an  end  to  it,  with  all  that  believed  such 
corporal  presence,  was  this:  Christ  has  certainly  a  natural  body  still,  because  the 
bread  and  wine  are  turned  to  it;  and  they  cannot  be  turned  to  that  which  is  not. 
In  their  writings  they  argued  against  the  possibility  of  a  substantial  change  of  a 
human  nature  into  the  divine;  but  that  could  not  have  been  urged  by  men  who 
believed  a  substantial  mutation  to  be  made  in  the  sacrament;  for  then  the  Eutych- 
ians  might  have  retorted  tlie  argument  with  great  advantage  upon  them. 

The  Eutychians  did  make  use  of  some  expressions  that  were  used  by  some  in 
the  Cliurch,  which  seemed  to  import  that  they  did  argue  from  the  sacrament,  as 
Theodoret  represents  their  objections.  But  to  that  he  answers,  as  we  have  seen, 
denying  that  any  such  substantial  change  was  made.  The  design  of  those  fathers 
was  to  prove,  that  things  might  be  united  together,  and  continue  so  united,  with- 
out a  change  of  their  substances,  and  that  this  was  true  in  the  two  natures  in  the 
person  of  Christ;  and  to  make  this  more  sensible,  they  bring  in  the  matter  of  the 
sacrament,  as  a  thing  known  and  confessed;  for  in  tlieir  arguing  upon  it  they  do 
suppose  it  as  a  thing  out  of  dispute. 

Now,  according  to  the  Koman  doctrine,  this  had  been  a  very  odd  sort  of  an  ar- 
gument, to  prove  that  Christ's  human  nature  was  not  swallowed  up  of  the  divine; 
because  the  mysteries  or  elements  in  the  sacrament  are  changed  into  the  substance 
of  Christ's  body,  only  they  retain  the  outward  appearance  of  bread  and  v  ine. 

To  this  a  Eutychian  might  readily  have  answered,  that  then  the  human  nat- 
ure might  be  believed  to  be  destroyed;  and  though  Christ  had  appeared  in  that 
likeness,  he  retained  only  the  accidents  of  human  nature;  but  that  the  human 
nature  itself  was  destroyed,  as  the  bread  and  the  wine  were  destroyed  in  the  eu- 
charist. 

This  had  been  a  very  absurd  way  of  arguing  in  the  Fathers,  and  had  indeed  de- 
livered up  the  cause  to  the  Eutychians:  whereas  those  Fathers  make  it  an  argu- 
ment against  them,  to  prove,  that  notwithstanding  a  union  of  two  beings,  and 
such  a  union  as  did  communicate  a  sanctification  from  the  one  to  the  other,  yet 
the  two  natures  might  remain  still  distinguished;  and  that  it  was  so  in  the  eucha- 
rist^  therefore  it  might  be  so  in  the  person  of  Christ.  This  seems  to  be  so  evident 
an  indication  of  the  doctrine  of  the  whole  Church  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centu- 
ries, when  so  many  of  the  most  eminent  writers  of  those  ages  do  urge  it  so  home 
as  an  argument  in  so  great  a  point,  that  Ave  can  scarce  think  it  possible  for  any 


Transubstantiation. 


437 


man  to  consider  it  fully  without  being  determined  by  it.  And  so  far  we  have 
considered  the  authorities  from  the  Fathers,  to  shew  that  they  believed  that  the 
substance  of  bread  and  wine  did  still  remain  in  the  sacrament. 

Another  head  of  proof  is,  that  they  affirqj  that  our  bodies  are  nourished  by  the 
sacrament,  which  shews  very  plainly  that  they  had  no  notion  of  a  change  of  sub- 
stance made  in  it. 

Justin  Martyr  calls  the  eucharist  tlial  food  by  which  our  flesh  and  blood,  through 
its  transmutation  into  them,  are  nourished. 

Irenaeus  makes  this  an  argument  for  the  resurrection  of  our  bodies,  that  they 
are  fed  by  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ:  When  the  cup  and  the  bread  receives  the  word 
of  God  it  becomes  the  eucharist  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  by  ivhich  the  substance  of 
our  flesh  is  increased  and  subsists:  and  he  adds,  that  the  flesh  is  nourished  by  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  and  is  made  his  member. 

Tertiillian  says.  The  flesh  is  fed  with  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 

Origen  explains  this  very  largely  on  those  words  of  Ciirist,  It  is  not  that  ivhich 
enters  within  a  man  that  defiles  the  man:  he  says,  if  every  thing  that  goes  into  the 
belly  is  cast  into  the  draught,  then  that  food  which  is  sanctified  by  the  word  of  God, 
and  by  prayer,  goes  also  info  the  belly,  as  to  that  which  is  material  in  it,  and  goes  from 
thenxie  into  the  draught.  And  a  little  after  he  adds,  It  is  not  the  matter  of  the  bread, 
but  the  word,  that  is  pronounced  over  it,  which  profits  him  that  eats  it,  in  such  a  way  as  is 
not  unworthy  of  the  Lord. 

The  bishops  of  Spain,  in  a  council  that  sat  at  Toledo  in  the  seventh  century, 
condemned  tliose  that  began  to  consecrate  round  wafers,  and  did  not  offer  one  en- 
tire loaf  in  the  eucharist,  and  appointed,  for  so  much  of  the  bread  as  remained 
after  the  communion,  that  either  it  should  be  put  in  some  bag,  or  if  it  Avas  need- 
ful to  eat  it  up,  that  it  might  not  oppress  the  belly  of  him,  that  took  it  with  an  overcharge 
ing  burden,  and  that  it  might  not  go  into  the  digestion;  they  fancying  that  a  lesser 
quantity  made  no  digestion,  and  produced  no  excrement. 

In  the  ninth  century  both  Eabanus  Maurus  and  TIcribald  believed  that  the 
sacrament  vras  so  digested  that  some  part  of  it  turned  to  excrement,  which  was 
also  held  by  divers  writers  of  the  Greek  Church,  whom  their  adversaries  called, 
by  way  of  reproacli,  Stercoranists.  Others,  indeed,  of  the  ancients  did  think  that  no 
part  of  the  sacrament  became  excrement,  but  that  it  was  sptead  through  the  whole 
substance  of  the  communicant,  for  the  good  of  body  and  soul.  Both  Cyril  of  Je- 
rusalem, St.  Chrysostom,  and  John  Damascene,  fell  into  this  conceit;  but  still 
they  thought  tiiat  it  was  changed  into  the  substance  of  our  bodies,  and  so  nour- 
ished them  without  any  excrement  coming  from  any  part  of  it. 

The  fathers  do  call  the  consecrated  elements  the  figures,  the  sigm^,  the  symbols, 
the  types,  and  antitypes,  tlie  commemoration,  the  representation,  the  mysteries,  and  the 
sacraments,  of  the  bcxly  and  blood;  which  does  evidently  demonstrate,  that  they 
could  not  think  that  they  were  the  very  substance  of  his  body  and  blood.  Tertul- 
lian,  when  he  is  proving  that  Christ  had  a  true  body,  and  was  not  a  phantasm, 
argues  thus,  lie  made  bread  to  be  his  body,  saying,  This  is  my  body;  that  is,  the  figure 
of  my  body:  from  which  he  argues,  that  since  his  body  had  that  for  its  figure,  it  was 
a  true  body;  for  an  empty  thing,  such  as  a  phantasm  is,  cannot  have  a  figure.  It 
is  from  lience  clear,  that  it  was  not  then  believed  tliat  Christ's  body  was  literally 
in  the  sacrament;  for  otherwise  the  argument  would  have  been  much  clearer  and 
shorter:  Christ  has  a  true  body,  because  Ave  believe  that  the  sacrament  is  truly  his 


438 


The  LorcVs-supper. 


body,  than  to  go  and  prove  it  so  far  about,  as  to  say  a  phantasm  has  no  figure;  but 
ihe  sacrament  is  the  figure  of  Christ's  body,  therefore  it  is  no  phantasm. 

St.  Austin  says,  He  commended  and  gave  to  his  disciples  the  figure  of  his  body  and 
blood.  And  when  the  Manicheans  objected  to  him  that  blood  is  called  in  the  Old 
Testament  the  life  or  soul,  contrary  to  Avhat  is  said  in  the  Xew;  he  answers  that 
blood  was  not  the  soul  or  life,  but  only  the  sign  of  it;  and  that  the  sign  sometimes 
bears  the  name  of  that  of  which  it  is  the  sign :  so  says  he,  Christ  did  not  doubt  to  say, 
This  is  my  body,  when  he  tms  giving  the  sign  of  his  body.  Now  that  had  been  a  very 
bad  argument,  if  the  bread  was  truly  the  body  of  ChrLst;  it  had  proved  that  the 
sign  must  be  one  with  the  thing  signified. 

The  whole  ancient  liturgies,  and  all  the  Greek  fathers,  do  so  frequently  use  tlie 
words  type,  antitype,  sign,  and  mystery,  that  this  is  not  so  much  as  denied;  it  is  their 
constant  style.  Xow  it  is  apparent  that  a  thing  cannot  be  the  type  and  symbol  of 
itself.  And  though  they  had  more  frequent  occasions  to  speak  of  the  eucharist 
than  either  of  baptism  or  the  chrism;  yet  as  they  called  the  water  and  the  oil 
types  and  mysteries,  so  they  bestowed  the  same  descriptions  on  the  elements  in  the 
eucharist;  and  as  they  liave  many  strong  expressions  concerning  the  water  and 
the  oil  that  cannot  be  literally  understood,  so  upon  the  same  grounds  it  will  apjiear 
reasonable  to  give  the  same  exposition  to  some  high  expressions  that  they  fell  into 
concerning  this  sacrament.  Facundus  has  some  very  full  discourses  to  this  pur- 
pose: he  is  proving  that  Christ  may  be  called  the  adopted  Son  of  God,  as  well  as 
he  is  truly  his  Son,  and  that  because  he  was  baptized.  The  sacrament  of  adoption, 
that  is  baptism,  may  be  called  baptism,  as  the  sacrament  of  his  body  and  blood,  which  is  in 
the  consecrated  bread  and  cup,  is  called  his  body  and  blood:  not  that  the  bread  is  properly 
hU  body,  or  the  cup  properly  his  blood  ;  but  because  they  contain  in  them  the  mystery  of  his 
body  and  blood.  St.  Austin  says,  That  sacraments  must  Jiave  some  resemblance  of  those 
things  of  which  they  are  the  .'iacramcnts :  so  the  sacrament  of  the  body  of  Christ  is  after  some 
manner  his  body;  and  the  sacrament  of  his  blood  is  after  some  maimer  his  blood.  And 
speaking  of  the  eucharist  as  a  sacrifice  of  praise,  he  says.  The  flesh  and  blood  of  this 
sacrifice  tms  promised  before  the  coming  of  Oirisi,  by  the  sacrifices  that  were  the  types  of  it. 
In  the  passion  the  sacrifice  icas  truly  offered;  and  after  fas  ascension  ii  is  celebrated  by  t/ie 
sacrament  of  the  remembrance  of  it.  And  when  he  speaks  of  the  murmuring  of  the 
Jews,  upon  our  Saviour's  speaking  of  giving  liis  flesli  to  them,  to  eat  it;  lie  adds. 
They  foolishly  and  carnally  thought  that  he  was  to  cut  off  some  parcels  of  his  body,  to  be 
given  to  them:  but  he  shows  that  there  wus  a  sacrament  hid  there.  And  he  thus  para- 
phrases that  passage.  The  words  tlrnt  I  have  .fjyjken  to  you,  they  are  spirit  and  life: 
understand  spiriluully  that  which  I  have  said;  for  it  is  not  this  body  which  you  see,  that  you 
are  to  eat,  or  to  drink  tliis  blood  which  they  shall  shed,  who  crucify  me.  But  I  have  rec- 
ommended a  sacrament  to  you,  which  being  spiritually  understood,  shall  quicken  you:  and 
though  it  be  necessary  that  it  be  celebrated  visibly,  yet  it  must  be  understood  invisibly. 

Primasius  compares  the  sacrament  to  a  pledge,  which  a  dying  man  leaves  to 
any  one  whom  he  loved.  But  that  which  is  more  important  than  the  quotation 
of  any  of  the  words  of  the  Fathers  is,  that  the  author  of  the  books  of  tlie  sacra- 
ment, which  pass  under  the  name  of  St.  Ambrose,  though  it  is  generally  agreed 
that  those  books  were  writ  some  ages  after  his  death,  gives  us  the  prayer  of  con- 
secration, as  it  was  used  in  his  time:  he  calls  it  the  heavenly  wvrds,  and  sets  it  down. 
The  offices  of  the  Church  are  a  clearer  evidence  of  the  doctrine  in  that  Church 
than  all  the  discourses  that  can  be  made  by  any  doctor  in  it;  the  one  is  the  Ian- 


Trans  ubsta  ntiation. 


439 


guage  of  the  whole  body,  whereas  the  other  are  only  the  private  reasonings  of 
particular  men:  and,  of  all  the  parts  of  the  office,  the  prayer  of  consecration  is 
that  which  does  most  certainly  set  out  to  us  the  sense  of  that  Church  that  used  it. 
But  that  which  makes  this  remark  the  more  important  is,  that  the  prayer,  as  set 
down  by  this  pretended  St.  Ambrose,  is  very  near  the  same  with  that  which  is  now 
in  the  canon  of  the  mass;  only  there  is  one  very  important  variation,  which  will 
best  appear  by  setting  both  down. 

That  of  St.  Ambrose  is,  Fac  nobis  hanc  oblationem,  ascriptam,  ratioTwbilem,  accep- 
iabilevi,  quod  estfigura  corporis  et  sanguinis  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi,  qui  pridie  quam 
pateretur,  etc.  That  in  the  canon  of  the  mass  is,  Quam  oblationem  tu  JDeus  in  om- 
nibus quce  sumus  benedictam,  ascriptam,  raiam,  rationabilem,  acceptabilemque  facere  dig- 
neris:  ut  nobis  corpus  et  sanguis  fiat  dilectissimi  Filii  tui  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi. 

We  do  plainly  see  so  great  a  resemblance  of  the  latter  to  the  former  of  these 
two  prayers,  that  we  may  well  conclude  that  the  one  was  begun  in  the  other;  but 
at  the  same  time  we  observe  an  essential  difference.  In  the  former  this  sacrifice 
is  called  the  figure  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  Whereas  in  the  latter  it  is 
prayed,  that  it'may  become  to  us  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  As  long  as  the  former 
was  the  prayer  of  consecration,  it  is  not  possible  for  us  to  imagine  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  corporal  presence  could  be  received;  for  that  which  was  believed  to 
be  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  could  not  be  called,  especially  in  such  a  part  of 
the  office,  the  figure  of  his  body  and  blood;  and  therefore  the  change  that  was  made 
in  this  prayer  was  an  evident  proof  of  a  change  in  the  doctrine;  and  if  we  could 
tell  in  what  age  that  was  done,  we  miglit  then  upon  greater  certainty  fix  the  time 
in  which  this  change  was  made,  or  at  least  in  which  the  inconsistency  of  that 
prayer  with  this  doctrine  was  observed. 

I  have  now  set  down  a  great  variety  of  proofs  reduced  under  different  heads; 
from  which  it  appears  evidently  that  the  Fathers  did  not  believe  tliis  doctrine, 
but  that  they  did  affirm  the  contrary  very  expressly.  Tliis  sacrament  continued 
to  be  so  long  considered  as  the  figure  or  image  of  Christ's  body,  that  the  Seventh 
General  Council,  which  met  at  Constantinople  in  the  year  754,  and  consisted  of 
above  three  hundred  and  thirty  bishops,  when  it  condemned  the  worship  of  im- 
ages, affirmed  this  was  the  only  image  that  we  might  lawfully  have  of  Christ;  and 
that  he  had  appointed  us  to  offer  this  image  of  his  body,  to  wit,  the  substance  of  the 
bread.  That  was  indeed  contradicted  with  much  confidence  by  the  Second  Council 
of  Nice,  in  which,  in  opposition  to  what  appears  to  this  day  in  all  the  Greek  lit- 
urgies, and  the  Greek  Fathers,  they  do  positively  deny  that  the  sacrament  was 
ever  called  the  image  of  Christ:  and  they  affirm  it  to  be  the  ti^ue  body  of  Christ.* 

§  5.  Further  Roman  Proofs; 

But  though  the  Scriptures  and  the  Fathers  are  chary  in  giving 
support  to  this  doctrine,  Romanists  are  not  discouraged.  The 
Catechism  says: 

Another  means  of  ascertaining  the  belief  of  the  Church  on  matters  of  faith,  is 
the  condemnation  of  the  contrary  doctrine.  That  the  belief  of  the  real  presence 
was  that  of  the  Universal  Church  of  God,  unanimously  professed  by  all  her  chil- 
dren, is  demonstrated  by  a  well-authenticated  fact.    When  in  the  eleventh  cent- 


*  Burnet,  "Exposition  of  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles,"  pp.  429-437. 


440 


The  Lord' S'Siipper. 


ury  Berengarius  presumed  to  deny  this  dogma,  asserting  tliat  the  eucharist 
was  only  a  sign,  the  innovation  was  immediately  condemned  by  the  unanimous 
voice  of  the  Christian  world.  The  Council  of  Vercelli,  convened  by  authority  of 
Leo.  IX.,  denounced  the  heresy,  and  Berengarius  himself  retracted  and  anathe- 
matized his  error.  Kelapsing,  however,  into  the  same  infatuation  and  impiety, 
he  was  condemned  by  three  different  Councils,  convened,  one  at  Tours,  the  other 
two  at  Rome;  of  the  two  latter,  one  was  summoned  by  Nicholas  II.,  the  other 
by  Gregory  VII.  The  General  Council  of  Lateran,  held  under  Innocent  III.,  fur- 
ther ratified  the  sentence;  and  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church,  on  this  point  of 
doctrine,  was  more  fully  declared  and  more  firmly  established  in  the  Councils  of 
Florence  and  Trent. 

To  this  we  reply  first  by  concession.  These  Councils  did  de- 
clare and  establish  this  dogma;  and  it  is  all  the  worse  for  the 
Councils  that  tliey  did  so.  It  was  not  the  only  bad  thing  that 
they  did,  but  one  can  conceive  of  scarcely  any  thing  worse. 

But  then  we  also  reply  by  positive  denial.  This  dogma  never 
was  '^the  belief  of  the  universal  Church  of  God,  unanimously 
professed  by  all  her  children."  It  requires  great  hardihood  to 
make  such  an  assertion.  * 

The  Greek  Church  never  has  believed  in  transubstantiation 
and  the  adoration  of  the  host,  though  it  holds  to  a  kind  of  con- 
substantiation.  Some  of  the  late  Greek  Fathers,  indeed,  use  the 
terms  iizra^ioArj  and  iitzaarotyeLCJct-.  The  former  word  means  sim- 
ply change,  and  proves  nothing;  the  latter  is  literally  change  of 
the  elements.  Romanists  render  the  verb  transelementare,  and 
insist  that  it  means  transubstantiate.  Suidas  says  it  means  the 
same  as  iit-aoyr^iiaTiXvi^  iiera-Xdzro),  to  transfigure,  to  transform. 
But  Papists  themselves  admit  of  no  change  in  the  form;  the  spe- 
cies still  remain.  Suicer  says,  transelementare  will  not  express 
the  sense.  Jeremy  Taylor  cites  the  Jesuit  Suarez  as  admitting 
that  iisraaroiysiioffiq  does  not  convey  the  meaning  of  transubstan- 
tiation. Gregory  Nyssen  says:  "These  things  he  gives  by  virt- 
ue of  the  benediction  upon  it,  transmuting  the  nature  of  the 
things  which  appear."  Theophylact,  the  last  of  the  Greek  Fa- 
thers (A.D.  1077),  says:  "  The  merciful  God,  condescending  to  us, 
preserves  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,  bat  changes  them  into  the 
virtue  of  his  flesh  and  blood."    But  as  Bishop  Browne  well  says, 

Gregory  is  speaking  not  only  of  a  change  in  the  eucharist,  but  in  the  sacra- 
ments generally;  and  whatever  sanctifying  efficacy  may  have  been  attributed  to 
the  water  in  baptism,  no  change  of  the  substance  was  ever  believed  to  take  place. 
Theophylact  only  says  that  the  elements  are  changed  into  the  virtue  or  efficacy,  not 
into  the  svbstance,  of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood— a  very  oQtable  distinction.  He 


Transnhstantiation, 


441 


uses  the  same  word  of  change  very  unlike  transubstantiation,  e.  g.,  the  change  of 
our  bodies  to  the  state  of  incorrnption,  and  the  change  that  is  made  in  the  faith- 
ful when  they  are  united  to  Christ.  We  shall  find  abundant  proof  from  Greek 
Fathers,  centuries  before  Theophylact,  to  show  that  a  conversion  of  substance  was 
not  believed  by  tlie  early  Greek  Church ;  and  therefore  that  Theophylact's  trans- 
elementation  must  have  meant  something  else,  or  that  he  himself  must  have 
adopted  comparatively  modern  views. 

He  shows  that  Cyril's  language,  "  His  body  is  given  to  thee  in 
the  figure  of  bread,  and  his  blood  in  the  figure  of  wine,"  is  to  be 
understood  in  a  spiritual  sense,  as  Cyril  himself  explains  it  in 
opposition  to  the  carnal  views  of  the  Capharnaite  Jews,  who  un- 
derstood our  Lord's  words  as  implying  a  (Tanxo(say{a,  or  eating  of 
flesh.  A  famous  passage,  attributed  by  Romanists  to  Cyprian, 
which  speaks  of  the  bread  as  "changed  not  in  form,  but  in  nat- 
ure," was  not  written  by  him:  it  is  assigned  by  the  Benedictine 
editors  to  Arnoldus,  of  Bona  Vallis,  a  contemporary  of  St.  Ber- 
nard, A.D.  1115.  But  even  this  does  not  necessarily  imply  tran- 
substantiation.   As  Cranmer  says,  it  only  implies  that 

There  is  added  thereto  another  liiglier  property,  nature,  and  condition,  far  pass- 
ing the  nature  and  condition  of  common  bread,  that  is  to  say  that  the  bread  doth 
show  unto  us,  as  the  same  Cyprian  saith,  that  we  be  partakers  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
and  most  purely  joined  unto  Christ,  and  spiritually  fed  Avith  his  flesh  and  blood: 
so  that  now  the  said  mystical  bread  is  both  a  corporal  food  for  tlie  body,  and  a 
spiritual  food  for  the  soul. 

This  may  savor  of  consubstantiation,  but  it  is  not  transubstan- 
tiation. However,  no  matter  what  it  means,  Cyprian  did  not  say 
it;  and  a  great  many  worse  things  Avere  said  in  the  twelfth  cent- 
ury. 

§6.  History  of  the  Dogma. 

From  the  incautious  language  of  the  Fathers,  and  the  growth 
of  superstition  during  the  Dark  Ages,  one  may  readily  see  how 
this  dogma  gradually  crystallized  into  its  Tridentine  form. 

Bishop  Beveridge  has  very  well  epitomized  the  history  of  this 
dogma: 

Scripture  and  Fathers  holding  fortli  so  clearly  that  whosoever  worthily  receives 
the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's-supper  doth  certainly  partake  of  the  body  and  blood 
nf  Christ,  the  devil  there  took  occasion  to  draw  men  into  an  opinion  that  the 
bread  which  is  used  in  that  sacrament  is  the  very  body  that  was  crucified  upon  the 
cross,  and  the  wine  after  consecration  the  very  blood  that  gushed  out  of  his 
pierced  side.  The  time  when  this  opinion  was  first  broached  was  in  the  days  of 
Gregory  III.,  Pope  of  Rome  fin  the  eighth  century].  The  persons  that  were  the 
principal  abettors  of  it  were*Damascene  in  the  Eastern  and  afterward  Amalarius 
in  the  Western  Churches.    It  was  no  sooner  started  in  the  East,  but  it  was  op- 


442 


Tlie  Lord'S'Supper. 


posed  by  a  famous  Council  at  Constantinople,  consisting  of  three  hundred  and 
thirty-eight  bishops,  the  famous  opposers  of  idol  worship.  But  afterward  in  the 
Second  Council  of  Nice,  it  was  again  defended,  and  in  particular  by  Epiphauius 
the  deacon,  who  confidently  afTirmed  that,  "  after  the  consecration,  the  bread  and 
wine  are  called,  are,  and  are  believed  to  be,  properly  the  body  and  blood  of  Clirist." 
In  the  West  also  Amalarius,  having  broached  tliis  opinion,  Paschasius  Radbertus 
readily  swallowed  it  down.  But  Rabanus  Maurus,  Katraranus  or  Bertramnus,  as 
also  Johannes  Scotus  Erigena,  not  only  struck  at  it,  but  refused  it,  and  wrote 
against  it  as  a  poisonous  error.  And  after  them  Berengarius  too,  who  was  not  only 
written  against  by  Lanfranc,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  but  condemned  for  it  at 
a  council  held  at  Vercelli  (where  the  book  of  Johannes  Scotus  of  the  eucharist  was 
also  condemned),  and  at  another  Council  held  at  Rome  about  the  same  time.  And 
though  he  did  recant  his  opinion  at  a  Council  held  at  Tours,  and  another  at  Rome 
as  some  think,  so  as  never  to  hold  it  more,  yet  his  followers  would  never  recant 
what  they  had  learned  of  him.  But  in  the  Lateran  Council,  held  A.D.  1215,  the 
oi)inion  of  the  real  or  carnal  presence  of  Christ  was  not  only  confirmed,  but  the 
word  transubstantiated  was  newly  coined  to  express  it  by. 

Hagenbach  says: 

Hildebert  of  Tours  [A.D.  1055-1134]  was  the  first  who  made  use  of  the  full- 
sounding  term  tramubstantiatio,  though  similar  expressions,  such  as  transitio,  had 
previously  been  employed.  Most  of  the  earlier  scholastics,  and  t!ie  disciples  of 
Lanfranc  in  particular,  had  defended  the  doctrine  of  the  change  of  the  bread  into 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  accidentia  sine  subjecto;  these  were  now 
solemnly  confirmed,  by  being  inserted  tofjether  with  the  term  transubstantiatio,  into 
the  Decretum  Gratiani,  and  were  made  an  unchangeable  article  of  faith  by  Pope 
Innocent  III. 

But  the  Schoolmen  and  Komanists  admit  that  before  the  Coun- 
cil of  Lateran,  which  adopted  the  word,  the  dogma  of  transub- 
stantiation  was  not  an  article  of  faith.  Hence  the  persistent  op- 
position to  it  (as  to  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  and 
the  infallibility  of  the  Pope)  until  it  was  established  as  a  dogma 
by  that  Council.  The  Anglo-Saxon  Church  stood  out  long 
against  it.  Thus  ^If  ric,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  his  Pas- 
chal Ilomili/y  written  in  both  Latin  and  Saxon,  deielares  against 
the  papel  doctrine  of  transubstantiation. 

St.  Bernard  (A.D.  1115)  recognized  no  feeding  in  the  eucha- 
rist but  a  spiritual  feeding.  Even  Peter  Lombard,  Master  of 
the  Sentences  (1141),  declines  to  say  whether  the  conversion  of 
the  bread  and  wine  be  formal  or  substantial,  or  some  other  kind. 
And  Thomas  Aquinas,  forty  years  after  the  Council,  speaks  of 
Christ's  body  as  present,  not  bodily,  but  substantially,  whatever 
that  may  mean."^ 


*  Aquinas  held  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  present  not  localiter,  or  j;er  modum  di- 


Trqnsuhstanfiafion. 


443 


It  would  be  bootless  to  adduce  the  opinions  of  the  Schoolmen, 
and  the  subtleties  by  which  they  vainly  endeavored  to  expound 
this  dogma,  and  make  it  quadrate  with  Scripture,  reason,  and 
common  sense. 

As  everybody  knows,  it  was  one  of  the  great  test  doctrines  in 
the  time  of  the  Reformation.  Thousands  of  Protestants  were 
burned  at  the  stake  for  denying  that  the  wafer  was  the  body,  blood, 
soul,  and  divinity  of  Christ,  and  for  refusing  to  give  it  divine 
honors. 

§  7.  The  Superstitions  Engendered. 

The  article  says  this  doctrine  **hath  given  occasion  to  many 
superstitions." 

"  How  zealous  are  they,"  says  Beveridge,  speaking  of  the  host, 
"in  wrapping  it  up  neatly  in  their  handkerchiefs,  laying  it  up 
in  their  treasures,  carrying  it  about  in  their  processions,  yea,  and 
at  the  length,  in  worshiping  and  adoring  it  too!  "  Burnet  well 
remarks: 

That  it  has  given  occasion  to  abominable  idolatry  is  evident  from  the  adoration 
of  the  liost,  which  is  grounded  on  it.  But  though  idolatry  is  worse  than  supersti- 
tion, yet  it  is  different  from  it.  Wherefore,  for  the  proof  of  this  branch  of  the 
proposition  let  it  be  considered  that  in  cases  of  imminent  danger  or  great  calami- 
ties, the  host  is  exposed  by  the  Papists,  to  appease  God's  anger,  and  prevent  or  re- 
move his  judgments;  or  reference  may  be  had  to  the  perversions  made  in  the 
Romish  Church,  in  the  event  of  any  accident  happening  to  the  consecrated  ele- 
ments. Those  who  have  not  studied  this  subject  will  be  astounded  at  the  puerile 
and  impious  superstitions  which  Romanists  have  concreted  around  this  dogma. 
Only  tiiink  that  the  question  of  Stercorianism — we  revolt  at  the  abominable  word — 
was  discussed  with  great  earnestness  and  zeal  by  Romish  doctors  in  former  times. 
Paschasius  held  that  tlie  bread  and  wine  in  the  sacrament  are  not  under  the  same 
laAvs  with  our  food,  as  they  pass  into  our  flesh  and  substance  without  any  evacua- 
tion. 

Others  held  that  the  species  were  annihilated;  others,  that  they 
have  a  perpetual  being;  others,  that  they  are  changed  into  flesh 
and  blood,  and  not  voided;  others,  that  they  are  the  body,  blood, 
soul,  and  divinity  of  Christ,  subjected  to  such  a  process.  The 
Eoman  Missal  says  that  a  consecration  is  invalid  when  a  priest 
has  eleven  wafers,  and  intends  to  consecrate  only  ten,  not  deter- 
mining what  ten  he  proposes  to  consecrate.    Not  a  single  wafer 

viensiomim,  but  per  modum  siibstantice.  "So  the  real  body  of  Christ  in  the  eucharist," 
says  Sheldon  (History  of  Chrhfian  Doctrine,  I.  397),  "turns  out  to  be  the  most  un- 
real and  ghostly  thing  of  which  human  ingenuity  ever  attempted  to  draw  the  out- 
lines."—T. 


444 


The  LorcV s-siipper. 


is  turned  into  the  body  of  Christ  unless  the  priest  has  the  inten- 
tion to  effect  the  transubstantiation.  Thus,  as  no  one  knows  what 
is  tiie  intention  of  the  priest,  no  one  knows  whether  he  is  receiv- 
ing a  mere  wafer  or  the  body,  blood,  soul,  and  divinity  of  Christ. 
Those  who  want  to  know  to  what  degraded  superstitions  this 
dogma  has  caused  the  Komanists  to  sink  are  referred  to  the  "  The- 
ology" of  Peter  Dens,  a  teacher  of  theology  in  the  University  of 
Louvain,  a  noted  Romish  institution.  The  work  of  Dens  is  de- 
signed for  theological  students,  and  has  long  been  a  text-book  in 
the  College  at  Maynooth.  The  Roman  Missal  "  Respecting  De- 
fects in  the  Mass,"  may  also  be  examined.  Extracts  from  these 
works  are  given  in  Elliott's  "Delineation  of  Roman  Catholicism," 
Book  II.,  chapters  iv.,  v. 

^8.  Lutheran  Consubstantiation. 

The  third  paragraph  of  this  article  reads:  "  The  body  of  Christ 
is  given,  taken,  and  eaten  in  the  Supper,  only  after  a  heavenly 
and  spiritual  manner.  And  the  means  whereby  the  body  of 
Christ  is  received  and  eaten  in  the  Supper,  is  faith." 

AVe  have  seen  that  this  paragraph  took  the  jjlace  of  one  in  the 
previous  article  as  set  forth  in  the  time  of  Edward,  which  explic- 
itly repudiated  "the  real  and  bodily  presence;"  and  for  that 
reason  it  is  thought  the  substitution  was  made,  so  as  not  to  of- 
fend those  who  held  to  the  corporeal  presence.  But  these  could 
not  have  been  Papists,  because  the  article  denounces  their  great 
dogma  of  transubstantiation.  The  revisers,  it  is  thought,  may 
have  had  in  view  the  Lutherans  who  believed  in  consubstantia- 
tion; but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  even  that  could  be  the  case. 

Luther  held  that  though  the  elements  are  not  changed  into  the  i 
real  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  yet  the  latter  are  united  through 
the  consecration  wdth  the  former,  and  are  received  under  them  in 
the  sacrament.  He  held  the  notion  of  the  Schoolmen  de  j)rcesentia 
reali  et  suhstantiali,  that  in,  with,  and  under  {  in,  cum,  and  sid.))  the 
bread  and  wine,  the  true  and  essential  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
are  imparted  to  the  communicant,  and  are  received  by  him,  al- 
though in  a  manner  inexplicable  by  us,  and  altogether  mysteri- 
ous. The  Swiss  Reformers  held  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  re- 
ceived spiritually,  which  Luther  fiercely  denounced,-  holding 
that  it  was  received  realiter  et  suhstantialiter,  so  that  both  believ- 
ing and  imbelieving  communioants  partake  of  the  real,  substan- 
tial body  and  blood  of  Christ,  the  former  to  their  salvation,  the 


Transuhstantiation. 


445 


latter  to  their  condemnation.  The  bread  and  wine  are  received 
visibly  and  naturally,  the  body  and  blood  invisibly  and  super- 
naturally;  and  this  is  the  iinio  sacmmenfaUs,  which  takes  place 
only  in  the  eucharist,  which  he  illustrates  by  the  simile  of  heated 
iron.  He  held  that  what  the  bread  and  wine  do  or  have  done  to 
them,  the  same  is  done  by  or  is  done  to  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ;  they  are  broken,  poured  out,  distributed,  eaten,  and 
drunk.  Luther  insisted  upon  a  literal  interpretation  of  the 
words  of  Christ,  and  consequently  upon  the  actual  reception 
with  the  mouth  of  the  glorified  body  of  Christ  present  in  the 
bread,  and  of  his  real  blood.  "  Luther  was  led  logically,"  says 
Hagenbach,  "to  the  theory  of  the  integrity  of  Christ's  body, 
which,  however,  he  did  not  propound  till  a  later  period  of  his 
life."  The  idea  of  ubiquity,  however,  w^as  for  a  long  time  a  fluct- 
uating one.  If  the  body  of  Christ  was  everywhere,  it  was  in  all 
bread;  and  so  nothing  was  proved  for  tlie  specific  ubiquity  in 
the  Lord's-supper.  It  really  seems  incredible  that  such  a  man 
as  Luther  should  hold  opinions  so  preposterous;  or,  allowing  for 
his  apparently  insane  and  headstrong  temper,  that  any  should 
be  found  to  enjbrace  them.  Yet  his  followers  denounced  Calix- 
tus  as  a  heretic  because  he  called  tho  Ubiquitarian  controversy 
"an  unfortunate  dispute."  Brentius,  after  Luther's  death,  gave 
prominence  to  the  Ubiquitarian  conceit,  in  order  to  bolster  up 
the  doctrine  of  consubstantiation.  Melanchthon  opposed  it,  as 
making  confusion  in  the  two  natures  of  Christ,  as  did  the  Uni- 
versities of  Leipsic  and  Wittenberg.  But  Flacius  Illyricus,  Osi- 
ander,  and  other  leading  Lutherans,  as  Musculus,  Chemnitius, 
and  Chytrseus,  adopted  this  view,  some  of  them  holding  a  con- 
ference in  1577,  in  the  monastery  of  Berg,  and  composing  a  creed 
in  which  Ubiquitarianism  was  the  leading  article.  The  Ubiqui- 
tarians,  however,  were  not  agreed  among  themselves,  some  hold- 
ing that  Christ  during  his  mortal  life  was  everywhere  in  his  body, 
and  others  dating  its  ubiquity  from  the  time  of  his  ascension. 

This  is  truly  a  humiliating  chapter  in  the  history  of  the  Eef- 
ormation.  AYe  Avish  we  could  expunge  it  from  the  record.  Lu- 
ther really  seems  to  have  been  deranged  on  this  subject.  Think 
of  the  Keformer  writing  down  the  ^voYd  ifrrt,  est,  "  This  is  my 
body,"  and  shouting  over  it,  as  if  Zuinglius  or  any  one  else  could 
be  convinced  by  such  popish  puerility And  then,  how  absurd 
is  Lis  notion  that  omnipotence  can  multiply  the  body  of  Christ, 


446 


The  Lord'S'8upper» 


or  make  it  really  and  eubstautially  present  in  many  places  at 
once! 

Consubstantiation  overthrows  the  nature  of  a  sacrament,  as 
obviously  as  transubstantiation;  and,  like  it,  is  repugnant  to  the 
plain  words  of  Scripture,  and  has  given  occasion  to  many  super- 
stitions. It  can  hardly  be  supposed,  therefore,  that  this  para- 
graph of  the  article  was  designed  to  conciliate  the  Lutherans 
who  held  it.  This  is  the  more  obvious  from  the  rubric  at  the  end 
of  the  Communion  Service,  where,  referring  to  kneeling  at  the 
Lord's-supper,  it  is  declared: 

Thereby  no  adoration  is  intended,  or  ought  to  be  done,  either  unto  the  sacra- 
mental bread  or  wine,  there  bodily  received,  or  unto  any  corporal  presence  of 
Christ's  natural  flesli  and  blood.  For  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine  remain  still 
in  their  very  natural  substances,  and  tlierefore  may  not  be  adored  (for  that  Avere 
idolatry  to  be  abhorred  of  all  faithful  Ciiri.stians).  And  the  natural  body  and 
blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ  are  in  heaven,  and  not  here;  it  being  against  the  truth 
of  Christ's  natural  body  to  be  at  one  time  in  more  places  than  one.'* 

This  is  a  death-blow  to  both  transubstantiation  and  consub- 
stantiation. 

§9.  Calvin's  Theory  of  the  Spiritual  Presence. 

As  the  article  is  equally  opposed  toEomish  transubstantiation 
and  Lutheran  consubstantiation,  it  is  thought  by  many  to  have 
been  framed  to  correspond  with  Calvin's  theory  of  the  spiritual 
presence. 

Zuinglius  and  Carlstadt  held  that  the  bread  and  wine  are 
only  memorials  of  that  sacrifice  which  was  once  ofPered  on  the 
cross;  the  bread  and  wine  are  signs  of  wdiat  is  absent,  and  their 
use  must  be  to  excite  the  remembrance  of  it;  therefore  the 
Lord's-supper  becomes,  instead  of  a  charm,  a  mental  exercise, 
and  the  efficacy  of  it  arises  not  ex  opere  operato,  but  ex  opere  ope- 
rantis.  This  view  might  be  held,  and  is  held,  by  many  of  the 
Reformed  Churches  and  not  a  few  divines  of  the  English  Church, 
in  such  a  way  as  to  comprehend  the  full  scriptural  character  and 
design  of  this  sacrament,  and  may  be  shown  to  agree  with  this 
article.  But  Socinians  and  others  hold  it,  or  expound  it,  in  sach 
a  way  as  to  make  the  sacrament  a  "bare  sign,"  having  a  natural 
fitness  to  produce  salutary  emotions  in  the  communicant. 

Consequently  Calvin  set  forth  what  he  considered  a  via  media, 

*  For  a  full  discussion  of  the*'import  of  this  last  sentence,  see  Vol.  I.,  pp.  302- 
304.— T. 


Transnhstantiation. 


447 


a  middle  way,  between  the  Lutheran  and  Zuinglian  theories.  He 
held  that  "  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  not,  as  to  their  suh- 
stance,  present  in  the  sacramental  elements,  but  only  as  io  force 
and  effect;  they  are  vere  et  efficaciter  represented  under  the  bread 
and  wine;  dari  non  suhstantiam  corporis  Christi  in  sacra  coena  sed 
omnia  cpice  in  suo  corpore  nobis  henejicia  prcestitit.'' 

According  to  this  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  not  pres- 
ent in  space,  and  are  not  really  received,  but  spiritually,  with  a 
kind  of  manducatio  spiritualise    Hagenbach  says: 

In  Calvin's  view  it  is  only  the  believer  who  is  united  with  Christ  in  the  sacra- 
ment; and  the  body  of  Christ,  as  such  is  not  in  the  bread,  but  in  heaven,  from 
wlience  in  a  mysterious  and  dynamic  way  it  is  imparted  to  the  communicant 
(ii.  309). 

This  seems  to  correspond  to  the  "  heavenly  and  spiritual  man- 
ner," and  the  reception  by  "  faith  "  set  forth  in  the  article.  The 
body  of  Christ  is  in  heaven,  but  a  dynamic  influence  comes  forth 
from  it,  by  his  spiritual  presence,  which  is  realized  only  by  the 
believing  communicant. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  state  the  exact  differentia  of  Calvin's  view; 
his  mystical,  spiritual  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  is  very 
nebulous.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  he  or  his  followers  had 
any  clear  idea  of  what  he  intended.  He  could  not  indorse  the 
corporeal  presence,  and  he  was  not  satisfied  with  a  symbolical 
presence;  so  be  set  forth  the  spiritual  presence. 

But  a  Zuinglian  can  very  well  embrace  all  the  appreciable 
truth  contained  in  Calvin's  view,  without  the  cloud  of  mysticism 
which  surrounds  it.  The  body  of  Christ  is  in  no  intelligible 
sense  present  except  by  representation;  but  the  faithful  commu- 
nicant, by  the  symbols,  has  his  mind  lifted  up  to  the  contempla-  » 
tion  of  the  thing  signified;  his  faith  lays  hold  upon  the  atoning 
sacrifice  here  represented.  Christ  is  present  in  the  power  of  his 
spirit,  and  so  by  a  spiritual  manducation,  as  our  Lord  expresses 
it,  the  faithful  communicant  eats  the  flesh  and  drinks  the  blood 
of  Christ.  This  is  what  the  apostle  meant  by  the  communion  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  this  ordinance. 

By  faith  his  flesh  we  eat, 

Who  thus  his  passion  show. 
And  God,  out  of  his  holy  seat. 

Doth  all  his  gifts  bestow. 

When  stripped  of  mystical  representations  and  nebulous  met- 


The  Lofd^S'Suppe)'. 


aphors,  nothing  is  plainer  and  more  simple  than  this  ordinance. 
We  eat  and  drink  bread  and  wine,  as  Christ  commanded  ns,  in 
remembrance  of  him,  and  our  faith  lays  hold  upon  his  atoning 
sacrifice  thus  shown  forth,  and  we  receive  the  remission  of  sins 
and  all  other  benefits  of  his  passion.  We,  indeed,  live  by  this 
faith,  we  exercise  it  every  day;  but,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  won- 
derfully quickened  and  strengthened,  when  we  are  engaged  in 
this  affecting  and  impressive  service. 

§  10.  Elevation  and  Worship  of  the  Elements. 

The  last  paragraph  of  the  article  reads  thus:  "The  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's-supper  was  not  by  Christ's  ordinance  reserved,  car- 
ried about,  lifted  up,  or  worshiped."  The  meaning  is  that  the 
elements  in  the  sacrament  were  not  to  be  reserved,  etc. 

There  is  not  a  syllable  in  the  New  Testament  about  any  of 
these  superstitions. 

The  reserving  of  the  elements  began  at  a  very  early  date,  and 
so  also  the  sending  of  them  to  absent  members.  Justin  Martyr 
(A.D.  140)  is  the  first  who  mentions  this  custom.  In  his  *'  Second 
Apology"  he  says  the  same  eucharist  which  was  received  by  them 
that  were  present  was  sent  by  the  deacons  to  the  absent.  Eu- 
sebius  ("Ec.  His.,"  vi.  44)  cites  a  letter  of  Dionysius  of  Alexan- 
dria, in  which  he  says  that  Serapion,  a  penitent  lying  at  the 
point  of  death,  sent  his  grandson  to  the  presbyter  to  absolve  him 
and  give  him  the  eucharist.  The  presbyter  was  sick;  and  Dio- 
nysius  says:  "I  gave  the  boy  a  small  portion  of  the  eucharist, 
telling  him  to  dip  it  in  water,  and  to  drop  it  into  the  mouth  of  the 
old  man.  The  boy  moistened  it,  and  at  the  same  time  dropped 
it  into  the  old  man's  mouth,"  The  presbyters  kept  a  portion  of 
the  consecrated  elements  in  the  church  to  send  it  to  those  who 
were  in  prison,  sick,  or  otherwise  jjrevented  from  attendance  at 
the  celebration  of  the  eucharist.  Thus  early  did  superstition 
gather  around  this  ordinance.  (See  Bingham's  "Antiquities," 
XV.  4.)  , 

But  objectionable  as  was  this  custom,  it  was  very  different  from 
that  of  the  Papists,  who  put  the  wafer  in  the  pix,  keep  it  in  a 
"  sanctuary,"  exhibit  *it  on  the  altar,  carry  it  ostentatiously  under 
a  canopy,  demanding  of  all  who  see  it  to  bow  down  and  worship  it 
as  a  God. 

Sick  persons  and  prisoners  ought  not  to  be  deprived  of  the 


T)  ri  n  s  ubsta  ntiatlon. 


449 


privilege  of  communion ;  but  then  they  ought  to  have  the  priv- 
ilege of  enjoying  the  sacramental  service,  which  often  proves  a 
great  comfort  to  persons  so  situated. 

The  superstition  of  reserving  the  elements  leads  to  the  idola- 
try of  worshiping  them.  Against  this  the  Church  of  England 
has  a  rubric  conforming  to  the  present  article: 

And  if  any  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain  nnconsecrated,  the  curate  sliall  liave 
It  to  his  own  use;  but  if  any  remain  of  that  wliicli  was  consecrated,  it  sliall  not  be 
carried  out  of  the  Church,  but  the  priest,  and  such  other  of  the  communicants  as 
lie  shall  then  call  unto  him,  shall,  immediately  after  the  blessing,  reverently  eat 
and  drink  the  same. 

Our  Church  has  very  properly  omitted  this  rubric.  It  is  easy 
to  see  how  it  might  be  abused,  to  a  Corinthian  scandal.  Besides, 
this  post-communion  eating  and  drinking  seems  to  recognize  a 
sanctity  in  the  "  consecrated  "  elements  remaining  after  the  com- 
munion; if  not,  why  not  dispose  of  the  rdiquice  as  ordinary  food? 
It  is  not  pretended  that  this  post-communion  eating  and  drink- 
ing is  sacramental;  then  what  is  it  but  ordinary  eating  and 
^drinking?  and  why  should  this  bo  required  if  there  were  not  a 
lingering  superstition  in  regard  to  the  consecrated  elements? 
Thus  the  very  rubric  which  was  leveled  against  the  superstition 
of  reserving  and  worshiping  the  elements,  and  conveying  them 
away  to  be  used  as  amulets,  fosters  the  superstitious  regard  for 
them  out  of  which  the  evils  in  question  originated. 

If  this  eating  and  drinking  is  ordered  to  prevent  an  improper 
use  of  them,  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that  it  is  more  adapted 
to  lead  to  abuse  than  to  prevent  it.  We  have  been  administer- 
ing the  eucharist  for  between  forty  and  fifty  years;  we  have  done 
it  hundreds  of  times,  and  we  never  have  Jinown  any  scandal 
originate  in  the  removal  of  the  reliquicu  by  a  minister,  deacon,  or 
steward. 

In  the  face  of  the  rubric  forbidding  the  reJiqidcr.  to  be  taken 
out  of  the  Churcli,  Canon  Carter  (a  noted  Kitualist)  defends  the 
reservation  of  the  sacrament  to  be  carried  to  the  sick  (as  well  as 
the  unction  of  the  sick)  on  the  ground  that  it  Avas  prescribed  in 
the  First  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.,  and  though  omitted  in  the 
Second  Book,  it  is  nowhere  prohibited.  Carry  out  that  princi- 
ple, and  you  will  have  the  Bomish  eucharistic  vestments,  incense, 
bowings,  and  genuflections,  and  all  the  paraphernalia  of  popery. 
AYe  are  devoutly  thankful  for  deliverance  from  all  such  ambig- 
29  Vol.  II. 


450 


Tlie  Lord's-sii2)pe}\ 


uous  and  self -contradictory  legislation.  Our  trumpet  gives  no 
uncertain  sound. 

As  to  the  elevation  of  the  elements,  there  is  not  a  syllable  con- 
cerning it  in  the  New  Testament  nor  in  the  Fathers.  Bingham 
(xv.  8)  proves  that  Germanas,  Bishop  of  Constantinople  (A.D. 
715),  was  the  first  among  the  Greeks,  and  Ivo  Carnotensis,  in  the 
eleventh  century,  the  first  among  the  Latins,  to  speak  of  the  ele- 
vation of  the  host;  but  this  elevation  was  designed  to  express 
the  crucifixion  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  not  for  adoration. 
Daille  says  that  Gulielmus  Durantus  was  the  first  writer  who 
spoke  of  elevation  for  adoration,  about  A.D.  1386.  This  was 
shortly  after  the  dogma  of  transubstantiation  was  established, 
so  that,  as  Bingham  says,  "  mother  and  daughter  came  within  an 
age  of  one  another."  The  most  learned  Papists  admit  that  the 
elevation  and  adoration  did  not  obtain  till  about  the  twelfth 
century. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  the  simple  lifting  up  of  the 
bread  and  wine  in  the  administration,  to  fix  the  minds  of  com- 
municants upon  them,  so  as  to  realize  "the  thing  signified," 
which  we  frequently  do,  is  not  the  elevation  here  repudiated. 


PART  VII. 
ARTICLE  XIX. 

Of  Both  Kinds. 

The  cup  of  the  Lord  is  not  to  he  denied  to  the  lay  peo'ple;  for  both 
the  parts  of  the  Lord's-supper,  by  Christ's  ordinance  and  command- 
ment,  ought  to  be  administered  to  all  Christians  alike. 


Introduction. 

This  is  the  same  as  the  Anglican  Article,  except  that  "  supper  " 
is  substituted  for  "sacrament,"  and  "Christians"  for  "Chris- 
tian men." 

The  vagueness  of  the  title  can  be  accounted  for  by  the  con- 
nection of  this  article  with  the  preceding,  and  by  the  familiarity 
of  the  phrase  (in  Latin,  De  Utraqiie  Specie)  in  those  days  of  con- 
troversy with  the  Papists. 

(451) 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  ROMISH  DOCTRINE  AS  DEFINED  BY  THE 
COUNCILS. 

§1.  Introductory. 

No  dogma  or  practice  of  the  Eomisli  Church  is  more  palpably 
opposed  to  the  teaching  of  the  Scripture  and  the  practice  of  the 
Church  for  more  than  a  thousand  ;y  ears,  and  none  has  been  more 
resolutely  opposed,  than  the  withholding  of  the  cup  from  the 
laity.  It  is,  indeed,  condemned  by  the  very  synodal  decrees  by 
which  it  is  established. 

§  2.  The  Council  of  Constance. 

Thus  the  Council  of  Constance,  which  first  decreed  "Half 
Communion"  (A.D.  MM),  says: 

Whereas,  in  several  parts  of  the  world,  some  have  rashly  presumed  to  assert 
that  all  Christians  ought  to  receive  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  eucharist  under 
both  species  of  the  bread  and  wine,  and  that  also  after  supper,  or  not  fasting,  con- 
trary to  the  laudable  custom  of  the  Church,  justly  approved  of,  which  tliey  dam- 
nably endeavor  to  reprobate  as  sacrilegious:  hence  it  is  that  this  holy  (General 
Council  of  Constance,  assembled  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  provide  for  the  salvation 
of  the  faithful  against  this  error,  declares,  decrees,  and  defines,  that  although  Christ 
did  after  supper  institute  tliis  lioly  sacrament,  and  administered  it  to  his  disciples 
in  both  kinds  of  bread  and  wine,  yet  this  notwithstanding,  the  laudable  authoritv 
of  the  sacred  canons,  and  the  approved  custom  of  the  Church,  hath  fixed  and  doth 
fix,  that  this  sacrament  ought  not  to  be  consecrated  after  supper  nor  received  by 
the  faithful  except  fasting.  And  as  this  custom,  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  certain 
dangers  and  scandals,  has  been  rationally  introduced,  and  that  although  this  sac- 
rament was  received  by  the  faithful  under  both  kinds  in  the  primitive  Church, 
it  was  afterward  received  by  the  faithful  under  both  kinds  by  the  officiating 
priests,  and  by  the  people  under  tlie  species  of  bread  only,  it  being  believed  most 
certainly,  and  nothing  doubted,  that  the  entire  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  really 
contained  as  well  under  the  species  of  bread  as  of  wine;  this,  therefore  being 
approved,  it  is  now  made  a  law.  Likewise  this  holy  synod  decrees  and  declares, 
as  to  this  matter,  to  the  reverend  fathers  in  Clirist,  patriarchs,  lords,  etc.,  that 
they  must  effectually  punish  all  such  as  shall  transgress  this  decree,  or  shall  ex- 
hort to  communicate  the  people  in  both  kinds. 

§  3.  The  Council  of  Trent. 

So  the  Council  of  Trent: 

Although  Christ  the  Lord  did  in  the  last  supper  institute  this  venerable  sac- 
(452) 


Tlie  Bomish  Doctrine  os  Defined  hy  the  Councils. 


453 


l  ament  of  the  eucharist  in  tlie  species  of  bread  and  wine,  and  thus  delivered  it  to 
the  apostles,  yet  it  does  not  thence  follow  that  all  the  faithful  in  Christ  are  botind 
by  divine  statute  to  receive  both  kinds.  Moreover  the  Council  declares,  that 
though  our  Kedeemer,  as  has  been  before  said,  did,  in  the  last  Supper,  institute 
this  sacrament  in  two  kinds,  and  thus  delivered  it  to  the  apostles,  it  must,  neverthe- 
less, be  granted  that  the  true  sacrament  and  Christ,  whole  and  entire,  is  received 
in  either  kind  by  itself. 

The  Council  then  proceeds  to  curse  all  who  may  gainsay  these 
decrees. 

It  seems  im^jossible  to  produce  a  case  in  which  the  word  of 
God  is  more  obviously  made  of  none  effect  by  the  traditions  of 
men  than  this.  It  is  explicitly  stated  that  the  apostles  and  prim- 
itive Christians  communicated  in  both  kinds;  yet  the  Church  or- 
ders otherwise. 

AYe  shall  see  [in  the  succeeding  chapter]  by  what  argument 
Eomanists  defend  this  sacrilegious  invasion  of  Christ's  authority 
and  this  mutilation  of  his  ordinance. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  ROMISH  ARGUMENTS  STATED  AND  REFUTED. 
§  1,  Romish  Claim  Concerning  Christ's  Institution. 

-  EoMANiSTS  say  that  though  Christ  administered  to  the  apos- 
tles in  both  kinds,  yet  they  were  priests,  and  so  this  example  is 
not  to  the  point.  But  why  withhold  the  cup  only,  and  not  the 
bread  as  well,  as  both  were  given  to  the  apostles?  And  why 
withhold  the  cup  from  non-officiating  priests,  when  Christ  gave 
it  to  those  who  were  not  officiating?  They  say,  indeed,  that  the 
apostles  were  not  priests  till  Christ  said  Hoc  facite  and  gave  them 
the  bread.  By  these  words  he  made  them  priests,  and  then  gave 
them  the  cup.  But  why  give  it  to  them  if  they  were  priests, 
seeing  they  were  not  officiating?  But  then  the  words,  "  Do  this 
in  remembrance  of  me,"  mean,  "  Eat  and  drink  bread  and  wine  in 
remembrance  of  me:  receive  as  communicants,  not  administer 
as  priests,  as  a  child  can  see.  Indeed,  the  apostles  never  were 
priests,  and  they  are  never  so  styled  in  the  Kew  Testament. 
There  are  no  official  priests  in  the  Christian  Church;  bishops 
and  presbyters  are  never  called  priests.  So  much  for  that  con- 
temptible quibble. 

§  2.  Romish  Claim  of  Christ's  Administration  at  Emmaus. 

Piomanists  say  Christ  administered  the  sacrament  in  one  kind 
to  the  disciples  at  Emmaus  after  his  resurrection;  for  Luke 
says,  he  took  bread,  and  blessed  it,  and  brake  and  gave  to  them. 
(Luke  xxiv.  30.)  But  this  was  an  ordinary  meal.  He  did  as  he 
had  been  accustomed  to  do,  and  as  the  heads  of  families  among 
the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  do,  namely,  bless  or  give  thanks  over 
the  food,  and  break  and  distribute  it.    {Cf.  Matt.  xiv.  19;  xv.  36.) 

§  3.  Romish  Claim  Based  on  Passages  in  the  Acts. 

But  Romanists  say  the  communing  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
is  spoken  of  as  "the  breaking  of  bread."  (Acts  ii.;  xx.)  What 
then?  Did  the  apostles  celebrate  the  eucharist  without  wine? 
Do  Romanists  allow  this?  Does  not  everybody  know  that 
breaking  bread  is  a  familiar  way  of  speaking  of  a  repast,  where 
(454) 


Tlie  Romkh  Arguments  Stated  and  Refuted.  455 


there  is  abundance  of  other  provisions  besides  bread,  and  no 
lack  of  wine? 

§4.  Romish  Use  of  i  Cor.  xi.  27  and  John  vi.  51. 

The  Romanists  absurdly  adduce  1  Cor.  xi.  27  in  support  of 
their  error:  "  Whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread  or  drink  this  cup  of 
the  Lord  unworthily  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord."  Admitting  that  "or,"  is  the  true  reading,  what  does 
it  prove?  Why  simply  this,  that  the  profane  use  of  either  the 
bread  or  the  wine  in  this  ordinance  is  a  grievous  sin.  Some 
of  the  Corinthians  to  whom  the  apostle  was  writing  were  guilty 
of  this  very  sin:  they  ate  to  gluttony,  tliey  drank  to  drunkenness. 
They  certainly  used  ''  both  kinds."    Alford  well  remarks: 

The  Komanists  absurdly  enough  defend  by  this  y  their  practice  of  commu- 
nicating only  in  one  kind.  Translated  into  common  language,  and  applied  to  the 
ordinary  sustenance  of  the  body,  their  reasoning  stands  thus:  "Whoever  eats  to 
excess,  or  drinks  to  excess,  is  guilty  of  sin;  therefore  eating,  without  drinking, 
will  sustain  life." 

In  five  other  jjlaces  in  this  and  the  preceding  chapter  the 
apostle  speaks  of  eating  and  drinking,  and  it  is  very  clear  the 
Corinthians  did  both.  We  are  ashamed  to  reply  to  such  soph- 
istry; it  is  evident  that  sensible  Eomanists  are  ashamed  of  it 
themselves. 

So  of  the  reference  to  John  vi.  51,  "  If  any  man  eat  of  this 
bread  he  shall  live  forever,"  in  wdiich  there  is  no  reference  to 
the  eucharist.  But  if  there  w^ere,  it  would  be  all  the  worse  for 
their  cause,  for  the  Saviour  immediately  adds,  when  the  Jews 
said,  "How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat?"  "Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man, 
and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you."  If  this  refers  to 
the  sacrament,  every  lay  Eomanist  is  damned,  for  not  one  ever 
drinks  the  blood. 

§5.  Thomas  Aquinas's  Doctrine  of"  Concomitance." 

But  the  Schoolmen  have  foisted  in  the  doctrine  of  "Concom- 
itance" to  meet  the  case.  Thomas  Aquinas  is  said  to  have  been 
the  inventor  of  this  term — in  Siimma,  P.  iii.,  Qu.  76,  Art.  1.: 
"  Sciendum,  quod  aliquid  Christi  est  in  hoc  sacramento  duplicitu: 
uno  modo  quasi  ex  vi  sacramenti,  alio  modo  ex  naturali  concomi- 
tantia."  By  this  barbarous  term  he  meant  to  convey  the  idea  that 
as  the  flesh  and  blood  are  mingled  in  the  natural  body,  so  that 


Of  Both  Kinds. 


if  you  have  the  former  you  have  also  the  latter,  so  in  the  sacra- 
ment there  is  the  accompanying  of  the  body  of  Christ  by  the 
blood,  and  of  the  blood  by  the  body. 

This  partakes  of  the  absurdity  of  the  dogma  of  trans ubstantia- 
tion  which  occasioned  it.  In  the  living  body  the  blood  is  trans- 
fused through  every  part;  but  in  the  bread  there  is  no  wine,  and 
in  the  wine  there  is  no  bread.  There  may  be  said  to  be  a  kind 
of  concomitancy  in  the  elements  when  the  bread  is  dipped  into 
the  wine  and  so  administered.  But  this  x^i'actice,  though  some- 
times allowed  by  popes  and  councils,  and  still  obtaining  in  the 
Oriental  Communions,  has  been  disallowed  by  other  popes  and 
councils  (demonstrating  their  infallibility!)  and  is  not  tolerated 
at  present  in  the  AVestern  Church.  The  li^read  in  the  eucharist 
is  to  be  broken  and  the  wine  is  to  be  poured  out,  to  represent 
not  the  living  body  of  Christ,  but  his  body  broken  and  his  blood 
shed  upon  the  cross.  Hence  the  elements  are  administered  sep- 
arately, and  all  notion  of  concomitance  is  absolutely  excluded. 
How  absurd  it  is  to  say  that  a  grain  of  flesh  or  a  drop  of  blood 
contains  the  whole  body  with  the  blood  of  a  man!  One  would 
think  that  such  a  preposterous  assertion  could  be  made  nowhere 
except  in  the  hospital  for  the  insane.  No  sane  man  can  believe 
it.  If  the  doctrine  of  concomitance  were  true,  one  would  think 
the  wine  should  be  given  rather  than  the  bread,  because,  though 
our  Lord  doubtless  intended  all  his  disciples  to  receive  both 
kinds,  yet  in  giving  the  bread  he  simply  said,  "  Take,  eat,  this  is 
my  body,  which  is  given  for  you;  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me; " 
whereas  when  he  gave  the  cup  he  was  more  precise  and  em- 
phatic, saying,  "  Drink  ye  all  of  it,  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the 
new  testament,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
And  Mark  says  explicitly:  "And  they  all  drank  of  it."  What  a 
pity  that  the  angelical  doctor,  Thomas  Aquinas,  had  not  been 
present  to  supply  the  place  of  Judas  the  traitor!  He  could  have 
suggested  the  more  excellent  way  of  dispensing  with  the  cup  on 
the  ground  of  concomitance.  But  neither  Christ  nor  the  apos- 
tles seem  to  have  thought  of  that;  nor  did  any  of  the  Fathers; 
nor  was  it  dreamed  of  till  the  thirteenth  century. 

There  is  no  end  to  the  absurdities  it  involves.  If  after  the 
priest  pronounces  the  "  quinque  verbal  charm,"  Hoc  enim  est  cor- 
pus  meim,  the  bread  is  changed  into  the  body,  blood,  soul,  and 
divinity  of  Christ,  why  does  he  proceed  to  consecrate  the  wine? 


Bomish  Aryumeiits  Stated  and  Refuted. 


457 


Is  he  going  to  transubstantiate  tliat  into  the  same  body,  blood, 
soul,  and  divinity?  or  is  he  going  to  make  another  Christ,  an- 
other God?  A-nd  if,  by  the  law  of  concomitance,  when  he  ate 
the  bread  he  also  drank  the  blood,  or  at  least  swfdlowed  it,  why 
does  he  afterward  drink  the  wine?  Is  this  a  second  eucharist? 
another  communion  ?  If  he  were  not  to  take  the  bread,  but  only 
the  wine,  and  but  a  single  drop  of  it,  according  to  the  law  of  con- 
comitance he  would  be  taking  the  whole  Christ,  flesh,  blood, 
body,  soul,  and  divinity.  Whoever  doubts  this  is  cursed  by  the 
infallible  Council  of  Trent. 

§  G.  Puerile  Objections  to  the  Use  of  Wine. 

ButEomanists  urge,  in  defense  of  withholding  the  cup  from  the 
laity,  that  sometimes  it  is  difficult  to  get  wine,  and  some  stom- 
achs will  not  take  it;  that  there  is  danger  of  spilling  it;  that  the 
whiskers  and  beard  may  get  into  it;  and  other  puerilities  of  the 
kind — which  deserve  no  serious  answer. 

Pope  Innocent  VIII.  allowed  the  Norwegians  to  celebrate  with- 
out wine,  because  they  could  not  get  it  witl^put  difficulty;  but 
suppose  they  could  not  have  gotten  wheat  bread  without  diffi- 
culty, would  he  have  allowed  them  to  celebrate  with  wine 
alone?  It  is  said  that  Oberlin  used  water  on  the  Alps  because 
he  could  not  get  wine.  It  would  have  been  better  to  forego  the 
ordinance  altogether,  as  God's  grace  is  not  confined  to  sacra- 
ments. AVhere  we  cannot  use  the  means  of  grace  he  dispenses 
the  grace  without  the  means.  • 

§7.  Romish  Attempts  to  Prove  Apostolic  Half-communion. 

Although  the  Councils  of  Constance  and  Trent  admit  that  the 
Apostolic  and  Primitive  Church  communed  in  both  kinds,  yet 
Eckius,  Harding,  Bellarmin,  and  some  other  Bomanists,  assert 
that  this  Avas  not  the  universal  custom.  But  Bona,  one  of  their 
greatest  authorities,  conclusively  shows  that  it  was  universal. 
He  says,  however,  that  "out  of  the  time  of  sacrifice,  and  out  of 
the  Church,  it  was  cu-stomary  always  and  everywhere  to  communi- 
cate in  one  kind."  But  Bingham  ("Antiquities  "  xv.  v.  1,  2)  shows 
that  he  was  mistaken  in  this  by  the  examples  furnished  by  Greg- 
ory Nazianzen,  Ambrose,  Justin  Martyr,  Chrysostom,  and  others. 
Both  the  bread  and  wine  were  sent  to  the  communicants,  and 
sometimes  reserved  by  them,  when  they  could  not  attend  the 
public  celebration. 


458 


Of  Both  Kinds. 


In  the  Gothic  version  of  Ulphilas,  in  the  fourth  century,  there 
is  this  remarkable  addition  in  1  Cor.  x.  17:  "  We  are  all  partakers 
of  that  one  bread  and  that  one  cup.'"  The  partaking  of  the  cup 
must  have  been  common  among  the  Goths  at  that  time.  It  is 
further  worthy  of  remark  that  D  and  F,  the  Sixtine  Vulgate,  and 
some  other  Latin  versions,  have  this  reading. 

§  8.  The  Hussite  Wars. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  revert  to  the  contentions  and  blood- 
shed resulting  from  the  withholding  of  the  cup  from  the  laity. 
Hagenbach  says: 

In  the  fifteenth  century  the  cup  was  again  violently  reclaimed  in  Bohemia.  It 
was  not  at  first  Huss,  but  his  colleague,  Jacobellus  of  Misa,  who  demanded,  in  the 
absence  of  tlie  former,  that  the  laity  should  be  re-admitted  to  the  participation  of 
the  Lord's-supper,  mh  utraque  forma.  Huss  afterward  approved  of  what  he  had 
done.  It  was  well  known  that  this  demand,  which  was  in  opposition  to  the  Synod 
of  Constance,  gave  rise  to  the  wars  of  the  Hussites.  The  consequence  was  that 
the  Couricil  of  Basle  confirmed  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  according  to  wliich  it 
is  sufficient  to  partake  of  the  Lord's-supper  sub  una  fonna;  but  it  permitted  ex- 
ceptions when  the  Church  deemed  it  desirable. 

§9.  Is  the  Romish  Sect  a  Church? 

There  is  one  embarrassing  question  arising  out  of  this  half- 
communion  of  the  Papists.  Nearly  all  our  authorities  (with 
whom  we  agree)  recognize  the  Komish  sect  as  a  branch,  though 
a  corrupt  branch,  of  the  catholic  Church.  But  one  of  the  notes 
of  the  Church  is  this,  that  in  it  "the  sacraments  are  duly  ad- 
ministered, according  to  Christ's  -ordinance,  in  all  those  things 
that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same."  Now  we  have  seen 
that  the  drinking  of  the  wine  is  just  as  necessary  as  the  eating 
of  the  bread;  the  latter  is  no  more  a  part  of  the  sacrament  than 
the  former.  "Drink  ye  all  of  it,"  said  Christ,  "and  they  all 
drank  of  it."  Some  of  the  popes  declared  it  a  grand  sacrilege 
to  do  the  one  without  the  other.  Pope  Gelasius  complains  that 
some  received  the  bread  but  abstained  from  the  cup.  These  he 
condemns  as  guilty  of  superstition,  and  orders  that  they  should 
either  receive  in  both  or  else  be  excluded  from  both;  because, 
he  says,  one  and  the  same  mystery  cannot  be  divided  without 
great  sacrilege.    Leo  the  Great  (440-461)  says: 

They  receive  the  body  of  Christ  with  an  unworthy  month,  but  refuse  to  drink 
the  blood  of  our  redemption.  Such  men's  sacrilegious  dissimulation  being  dis- 
covered, let  them  be  marked,  and  by  the  authority  of  the  priesthood  cast  out  of 
the  society  of  the  faithful. 


The  Eomish  Arcjuments  Stated  and  Refuted. 


459 


Bingham  pertinently  remarks: 

It  is  vain  to  say  here,  as  Bona  does,  that  these  decrees  were  only  made  against 
the  Manichees,  who  believed  wine  to  be  the  gall  of  the  prince  of  darkness,  and 
tlie  creature  of  the  devil,  and  therefore  refused  to  drink  it;  for  their  reasons  are 
general  against  all  superstition  whatsoever,  and  in  their  opinion  the  sacrament 
may  not  be  divided  without  grand  sacrilege,  and  thwarting  the  rule  of  the  first  in- 
stitution— which  Bona  might  have  learned  from  another  decree  related  in  their 
canon  law,  under  the  name  of  Pope  Julius,  who  says,  "  The  giving  of  the  bread  and 
the  cup,  each  distinct  by  themselves,  is  a  divine  order  and  apostolical  institution, 
and  that  it  is  as  much  against  the  law  of  Christ  to  give  them  jointly  by  dipping 
the  one  into  the  other,  as  it  is  to  ofier  milk  instead  of  wine,  or  the  juice  of  the 
grape  immediately  pressed  out  of  the  cluster;  all  which  are  equally  contrary  to 
the  evangelical  and  apostolical  doctrine,  as  well  as  the  custom  of  the  Cliurch,  as 
may  be  proved  from  the  Fountain  of  truth,  by  whom  the  mysteries  of  the  sacra- 
ments were  ordained." 

In  view  of  these  facts  and  authorities,  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  seems 
warranted  in  saying:  "The  sacrament  of  the  Lord's-supper  is 
not  celebrated  in  the  Church  of  Eome."  By  a  fair  logic,  there- 
fore, it  would  seem  that  the  Komish  Communion  is  not  merely  a 
corrupt  Church,  but  no  real  Church  at  all.  But  inasmuch  as 
Romanists  never  celebrate  the  eucharist  without  wine,  of  which 
the  laity  would  partake  if  allowed  to  do  so,  by  a  great  stretch  of 
charity  Protestants  generally  recognize  them  as  still  members 
of  the  visible  Church,  though  sadly  corrupt  in  doctrine  and 
practice,  and  the  rather  as  they  profess  to  receive  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  the  Three  Creeds,  however  grossly  they  misin- 
terpret them  and  sacrilegiously  eke  them  out  with  their  own  tra- 
ditions. 


PART  VIIL 
ARTICLE  XX. 

Of  the  One  Oblation  of  Christ,  Finished  Upon  the  Cross. 

The  offerinc)  of  Christ,  once  made,  is  that  jjerfed  redemption,  pro- 
pitiation, and  satisfaction,  for  cdl  the  sins  of  the  icliole  icorld,  both 
original  and  actual;  and  there  is  no7ie  other  satisfaction  for  sin  but 
that  alone.  Wherefore  the  sacrifice  of  masses,  in  ivhicli  it  is  commonh) 
said  that  the  priest  doth  offer  Christ  for  the  quick  and  the  dead,  to 
have  remission  of  pain  or  guilt,  is  a  hlasphemous  fahle  and  danger- 
ous deceit,   

Introduction. 

This  article  is  the  same  as  Article  XXXI.  of  the  Anglican  Con- 
fession, except  a  few  verbal  changes  in  the  final  sentence,  which 
reads  thus  in  the  English  Book:  "Wherefore  the  sacrifices  of 
masses,  in  the  which  it  was  commonly  said,  that  the  priest  did 
ofi'er  Christ  for  the  quick  and  the  dead,  to  have  remission  of 
pain  and  guilt,  were  blasphemous  fables  and  dangerous  deceits." 

The  doctrine  contained  in  the  first  sentence  of  this  article,  as 
opposed  to  Socinian,  Calvinistic,  and  other  errors,  has  been  fully 
discussed  under  the  Second  Article."^  It  is  here  adduced  to  op- 
pose the  Romish  error  concerning  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass. 

*See  "The  Atonement,"  Vol.  L,  pp.  215-208.— T. 

(4G0) 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  ROMISH  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  MASS. 

§1.  Canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 

The  Eomisli  doctrine  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  set  forth 
by  the  Council  of  Trent  (Ses.  xxii.,  De  Sacrificio  Missce): 

Canon  1,  If  any  one  shall  say  that  a  true  and  proper  sacrifice  is  not  offered  to 
God  in  the  mass,  or  that  what  is  to  be  offered  is  nothing  else  than  giving  Christ 
to  us  to  eat:  let  him  be  accursed. 

Canon  2.  If  any  one  shall  say,  that  by  these  words,  "  Do  this  for  a  commemo- 
ration of  me,"  Christ  did  not  appoint  his  apostles  priests,  or  did  not  ordain  that 
they  and  other  priests  should  offer  his  body  and  blood:  let  him  be  accursed. 

Canon  3.  If  any  one  shall  srty,  that  the  mass  is  only  a  service  of  praise  and 
thanksgiving,  or  a  bare  commemoration  of  the  sacrifice  made  on  the  cross,  and 
not  a  propitiatory  offering;  or  that  it  only  benefits  him  who  receives  it,  and  ought 
not  to  be  offered  for  the  living  and  the  dead,  for  sins,  punishments,  satisfactions, 
and  other  necessities:  let  him  be  accursed.* 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  article  is  leveled  directly  against  the 
doctrine  contained  in  these  Canons.  In  no  other  case  does  the 
bad  faith  of  the  Romanizers  in  the  Church  of  England  show 
itself  more  fully  than  in  this.  The  article  declares  "  the  sacri- 
fice of  masses  a  blasphemous  fable  and  dangerous  deceit;"  and 
the  Tridentine  Canons  curse  all  who  so  affirm. 

§2.  The  Roman  Catechism. 

By  a  strange  fatuity  the  Roman  Catechism  appeals  to  the 
Scriptures  in  support  of  this  monstrous  error.    It  says: 

The  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  with  regard  to  this  sacrifice,  she  received 
from  our  Lo.rd  when  at  his  last  supper,  committing  to  his  apostles  the  sacred 
mysteries,  he  commanded  them  and  their  successors  in  the  ministry, »to  immo- 
late and  offer  in  sacrifice  his  precious  body  and  blood. 

Now  it  might  be  a  sufficient  answer  to  say,  Christ  did  no  such 
thing.  The  record  shows  that  he  did  not,  as  we  have  already  seen. 
He  never  called  this  sacrament  a  sacrifice;  it  is  never  so  styled 
in  the  Scripture.  He  did  not  call  it  the  mass;  this  barbarous 
term  is  never  used  in  Scripture,  nor  by  the  Apostolic  Fathers.f 

*For  the  original  Latin  text  of  these  Canons  and  a  slightly  variant  English 
translation,  see  SchaflT,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  184,  185. — T. 

t  For  a  full  history  of  the  employment  of  the  term  see  Bingham,  Antiquities, 
Book  XIII.,  Chap.  i. 

(461) 


462    Of  the  One  Oblation  of  Christ,  Finished  Ujmi  the  Cross. 


Christ  did  not  make  his  apostles  priests;  he  never  called 
them  priests;  they  never  called  themselves  priests,  in  any  sense 
in  which  all  Christians  are  not  priests.  He  never  told  them  "  to 
immolate  and  offer  in  sacrifice  his  precious  body  and  blood,"  and 
they  never  did  so  horrible  a  thing. 

§3.  Romish  t^roof  from  i  Cor.  x.  21  Considered, 

But  the  Cathechism  refers  us  to  1  Cor.  x.  21:  "Of  this  the 
words  of  the  apostle  to  the  Corinthians  also  afford  sufficient 
evidence:  *  You  cannot/  says  he,  *  drink  the  chalice  of  the  Lord, 
and  the  chalice  of  devils;  you  cannot  be  partakers  of  the  table 
of  the  Lord,  and  of  the  table  of  devils.' "  If  they  had  belonged 
to  "  the  holy  Roman  Church,"  they  could  not  have  drunk  "  the 
chalice  of  the  Lord,"  for  the  priests  would  not  have  given  it  to 
them.  "As  thus,"  continues  the  Cathechism,  "by  the  'table  of 
devils'  we  understand  the  altar  upon  which  sacrifice  was  offered 
to  them,  so  by  *the  table  of  the  Lord,'  to  bring  the  words  of  the 
ajjostle  to  an  apposite  conclusion,  should  be  understood  the  altar 
on  which  sacrifice  was  offered  to  the  Lord." 

But  by  the  table  of  devils  we  do  not  understand  "  the  altar 
upon  which  sacrifice  was  offered  to  them."  The  heathen  did  not 
use  the  altar  as  a  table  at  which  they  ate  of  the  sacrifice.  Jo- 
sephus,  in  his  discourse  against  Apion,  Book  IL,  says:  "The 
heathen  offer  hecatombs  to  their  gods,  and  use  their  temples  for 
their  banqueting  houses."  Hence  Paul  says:  "If  any  man  see 
thee  which  hast  knowledge  sit  at  meat  \^y.a-:aAtt;j.vM)v,  reclining 
at  table]  in  the  idol's  temple,  shall  not  the  conscience  of  him 
which  is  weak  be  emboldened  to  eat  those  things  which  are  of- 
fered to  idols?"  (1  Cor.  viii.  10.)  The  custom  of  feasting  on 
the  sacrifices  in  the  temples  was  of  high  antiquity.  The  priests 
before  they  poured  the  wine  upon  the  sacrifice  tasted  it  them- 
selves; they  then  carried  it  to  the  offerers  and  to  those  who  came 
with  them,  that  they  might  also  taste  it.  By  thus  eating  and 
drinking  they  showed  their  interest  in  the  sacrifice,  and  claimed 
the  benefit  supposed  to  be  derived  from  it.  {Cf  Virgil,  jEneid, 
viii.  273;  Num.  xxii.  40;  xxv.  2;  1  Cor.  x.  7.)  Meat  thus  offered 
to  idols  was  sometimes  eaten  by  the  heathen  in  their  own  houses, 
as  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  x.  25-28. 

Paul  says  that  the  Israelites  which  eat  of  the  sacrifices  are 
partakers  of  the  altar  (1  Cor.  x.  18);  but  everybody  knows  they 


The  Romish  Doctr  'me  of  the  Mass. 


did  not  eat  at  the  altar,  as  at  a  table.  It  was  taken  from  the  al- 
tar, and  eaten  elsewhere,  on  a  table  or  otherwise;  and  by  thus 
feasting  on  the  sacrifice  they  proclaimed  their  interest  in  it,  and 
their  communion  with  him  to  whom  it  was  offered.  So  the  sacri- 
fice of  Christ  was  offered  upon  the  altar  of  his  cross ;  and  we  feast 
upon  that  sacrifice  by  faith  when  we  commemorate  his  death  in 
the  Lord's-supper.  It  is  as  impossible  to  speak  of  one's  feasting 
on  an  altar  as  it  is  to  speak  of  Christ's  being  sacrificed  on  a  table. 

When  Paul  says,  "  We  have  an  altar,  Avhereof  they  have  no 
right  to  eat  which  serve  the  tabernacle  "  (Heb.  xiii.  10),  he  is  to 
be  understood  as  MacKnight  interprets: 

Here,  by  a  usual  nietonomy,  the  altar  is  put  for  the  sacrifice,  as  is  plain  from  the 
apostle's  adding,  ''of  which  they  have  no  right  to  eat."  The  sacrificing  belong- 
ing to  those  who  believe  is  the  sacrifice  of  himself  which  Christ  offered  to  God  in 
heaven  for  the  sin  of  the  world;  and  the  eating  of  that  sacrifice  doth  not  mean 
the  corporal  eating  thereof,  but  the  partaking  of  the  pardon  which  Christ  hath 
procured  for  sinners  by  that  sacrifice. 

The  word  Ou(7io.ffTr]pw'^,  "  altar,"  occurs  twenty-three  times  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  never  once  means  the  Lord's  table. Ig- 
natius, if  the  passage  (Ad  Philadelph.  Sec.  4)  be  genuine,  says 
we  have  one  altar  (thusiasterion)^  which  some  think  refers  to  the 
Lord's  table,  because  he  is  speaking  of  the  eucharist,  in  which 
all  the  members  of  the  Church  unite.  But  his  meaning  is  uncer- 
tain, and  so  is  the  genuineness  of  the  passage.  In  after  times 
the  Fathers  talk  glibly  enough  about  the  altar,  the  unbloody 
sacrifice,  the  officiating  priest,  and  the  like,  thus  preparing  the 
way  for  the  Bomish  heresy.  Why  did  not  the  apostles  talk  in 
that  style?  Simply  because  they  did  not  consider  the  Lord's- 
supper  a  sacrifice,  the  Lord's  table  an  altar,  or  the  Lord's  minis- 
ter a  priest. 

§  4.  Alleged  Old  Testament  Proofs. 

♦  But  the  Catechism  proceeds : 

Should  we  look  for  figures  and  prophecies  of  this  sacrifice  in  the  Old  Testament, 
we  find  .in  the  first  place  that  its  institution  was  clearly  foretold  by  Malachy  in 
these  words:  "From  the  rising  of  the  sun,  even  to  the  going  down  thereof,  my 
name  is  great  among  the  Gentiles,  and  in  every  place  there  is  sacrifice,  and  there 
is  offered  to  my  name  a  clean  oblation;  for  my  name  is  great  among  the  Gentiles, 
saith  the  Lord  of  hosts." 

*  Thayer,  in  his  New  Testament  Lexicon.,  under  this  Avoni  gives  as  a  secondary  meaning 
"the  cross  on  which  Christ  snflered  an  expiatory  death,"  and  explains  "to  cat  of  this 
altar"  as  meaning  "to  appropriate  to  one's  self  the  fruits  of  Christ's  expiatory  death," 
citing  Heb.  xiii.  10.— T. 


464    Of  the  One  Oblation  of  Christy  Finished  Upon  the  Cross. 


If  there  were  any  reference  to  the  eucharist  in  this  passage, 
the  incense  and  tlie  pure  offering  would  simply  mean  the  prayers 
and  thanksgivings  accompanying  the  celebration;  these  being 
common  figurative  expressions  in  the  Scripture  denoting  such 
devotions.  (Ps.  li.  16,  17;  Heb.  xiii.  15,  16;  Ps.  cxli.  2;  Eev. 
viii.  3,  4.)  A  note  in  the  Geneva  Bible,  on  Mai.  i.  11,  gives  the 
obvious  meaning: 

God  showeth  that  their  ingratitude  and  neglect  of  his  true  service  shall  be  the 
cause  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles;  and  here  the  prophet  that  was  under  the  law, 
framed  his  words  to  the  capacity  of  the  people,  and  by  the  altar  and  sacrifice  he 
meaneth  the  spiritual  service  of  God  which  should  be  under  the  gospel,  when  an 
end  siiould  be  made  to  all  their  legal  ceremonies,  by  Christ's  only  sacrifice. 

The  prophet  never  dreamed  of  the  Lord's-supper;  he  never 
thought  of  a  literal  sacrifice  and  literal  incense  any  more  than 
Isaiah,  when  describing  the  latter-day  glory  of  the  Church, 
thought  there  would  be,  in  the  literal  sense,  priests  and  Levites, 
new  moon  solemnities,  wolves  and  lambs  feeding  together,  and 
lions  eating  straw  like  bullocks.  (Isa.  Ixv. ;  Ixvi. )  Did  our  Lord 
have  incense  when  he  instituted  the  eucharist?  Is  there  any 
reference  to  its  use  in  the  apostolic  Church.  Cardinal  Bona  and 
other  Piomanists  derived  its  use  from  the  apostles;  but  Bing- 
ham exposes  their  error,  and  shows  that  "  there  are  no  footsteps 
of  these  things  in  the  first  three  ages  of  the  Church."  ("An- 
tiquities," Book  viii.  Chap,  vi.) 

§  5.  The  Sacrifice  of  Melchizedek. 

The  Catechism  continues: 

This  saving  victim  was  also  foretold,  as  well  before  as  after  the  promulgation 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  by  a  variety  of  sacrifices;  for  this  r.lone,  as  the  perfection  and 
completion  of  all,  comprises  all  the  advantages  which  were  typified  by  the  other 
sacrifices.  In  none  of  the  sacrifices  of  the  old  law,  however,  do  we  discover  a  more 
lively  image  of  the  eucharistic  sacrifice  than  in  that  of  Melchisedech.  Onr  Lord 
himself,  at  his  last  supper,  offered  to  his  Eternal  Father  his  precious  body  and 
blood  under  the  appearances  of  bread  and  Avine,  at  the  same  time  declaring  him- 
self "a  priest  forever  after  the  order  of  Melchisedech." 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  any  thing  more  sophistical  than  this 
passage.  AYhen  it  is  said,  "  This  saving  victim  was  foretold  by  a 
variety  of  sacrifices,"  the  sophism  is  too  patent.  Everybody  knows 
that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  typified  by  patriarchal  and  Jewish 
sacrifices;  but  what  has  that  to  do  with  the  matter?  A  large  part 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — the  Leviticus  of  the  Kew  Tes- 


The  Romish  Doctrine  of  the  Mass. 


465 


tameut — is  taken  up  with  this  subject;  but  where  in  that  Epistle 
does  the  apostle  make  the  slightest  allusion  to  the  eucharist? 
Indeed,  he  never  alludes  to  it  in  all  his  Epistles,  except  in  1  Cor. 
X. ;  xi.  Does  Moses  intimate  that  the  bread  and  wine  which  Mel- 
chizedek  gave  to  Abram  typified  the  body  and  blood  of  Clirist 
in  the  eucharist?  Does  he  intimate  that  the  bread  and  wine 
were  offered  in  sacrifice  to  God  ?  Does  Paul,  in  his  allusion  to 
this  subject?  Here  is  the  simple  record:  "And  Melchizedek, 
king  of  Salem,  brought  forth  bread  and  wine;  and  he  was  the 
priest  of  the  most  high  God.  And  he  blessed  him,  and  said, 
Blessed  be  Abram  of  the  most  high  God,  possessor  of  heaven 
and  earth:  and  blessed  be  the  most  high  God,  which  hath  de- 
livered thine  enemies  into  thy  hand.  And  he  gave  him  tithes 
of  all."  (Gen.  xiv.  18-20.)  A  child  can  see  that  Melchizedek  gave 
Abram  and  his  company  the  bread  and  wine  for  their  refresh- 
ment after  their  pursuit  and  slaughter  of  the  marauders.  Bar- 
zillai  and  others  acted  in  a  similar  manner  toward  David  and 
the  people  that  were  with  him.  (2  Sam.  xvii.  27-29.)  There  is 
no  other  allusion  to  this  circumstance  except  in  Paul's  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews;  and  there  he  pays  not  one  word  of  the  bread 
and  wdne — an  unaccountable  omission  if  it  involved  so  great  a 
mystery.  He  enlarges  upon  the  tithes  paid  Melchizedek  by 
Abram,  and  used  it  as  an  argument  to  prove  "how  great  this  man 
was "  whose  priesthood  w^as,  in  a  sense,  higher  than  that  of 
Aaron's  and  typical  of  the  priesthood  of  our  Lord.  It  is  remark- 
able, too,  that  Paul  is  the  only  writer  of  the  New  Testament  who 
calls  our  Lord  a  priest.  And  there  is  no  other  place  in  the  whole 
Bible  in  w^hich  he  is  so  styled  (unless  Zach.  vi.  13  be  an  excep- 
tion) save  Ps.  ex.  4,  "  Thou  art  a  priest  forever  after  the  order  of 
Melchizedek,"  a  passage  w^hich  Paul  cites  twice  in  direct  form  in 
this  chapter,  and  twice  indirectly  in  the  two  preceding  chapters. 
The  Catechism  says:  "At  his  last  supper  he  offered  to  his  Eter- 
nal Father  his  precious  body  and  blood  under  the  appearances 
of  bread  and  wine."  He  did  no  such  thing.  He  offered  himself 
without  spot  to  God  upon  the  cross;  but  he  offered  pothing  but 
prayers  and  thanksgivings  to  God  at  the  sacramental  table;  the 
bread  and  wine  he  offered  exclusively  to  his  disciples.  He  did 
not  "at  the  same  time  declare  himself  'a  priest  forever  after  the 
order  of  Melchizedek.' "  He  never  said  that  on  any  recorded  oc- 
casion. He  showed  himself  as  the  antitype  of  Melchizedek,  and 
30  Vol.  II. 


466    Of  the  One  Oblation  of  Christ,  Finished  Ujjon  the  Cross. 


left  it  to  the  great  apostle,  under  inspiration,  thus  to  apply  the 
narrative  of  Moses  and  the  prediction  of  the  psalmist. 

§  6.  Proofs  from  Tradition. 

The  Catechism  of  course  claims  apostolic  tradition  for  the  sac- 
rifice of  the  mass;  and  Eomanists  generally  claim  the  authority 
of  the  Fathers  for  it.  Now  there  is  no  apostolic  tradition  for  the 
mass,  as  we  have  seen;  and  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  will 
afiTord  them  no  support. 

Athenagoras  (A.D.  150)  is  said  to  be  the  first  who  used  that 
famous  expression,  "the  unbloody  sacrifice."  He  says:  "Of 
what  service  to  me  are  whole  burnt  offerings,  of  which  God  has 
no  need?  although  it  be  right  to  offer  an  unbloody  sacrifice, 
and  to  bring  the  reasonable  service."  The  latter  clause  would 
seem  to  prove  that  he  had  no  reference  to  the  eucharist.  He  con- 
trasts the  sacrifice  of  praise,  etc. — an  unbloody  sacrifice — with  the 
bloody  sacrifices  of  the  law.  He  may  indeed  have  alluded  to  the 
eucharist  as  a  meat  or  bread  offering,  as  contrasted  with  bloody 
sacrifices;  the  bread  and  wine  are  sometimes  in  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers  spoken  of  in  this  way.    But  this  proves  nothing. 

The  Papists  contradict  and  stultify  themselves  when  they  call 
the  eucharist  the  unbloody  sacrifice,  as  contrasted  with  the  bloody 
sacrifice  on  the  cross,  for  they  tell  us  they  are  one  and  the  same. 
They  say  that  real  blood  as  well  as  real  flesh  is  offered  in  the 
eucharist — the  bread  being  no  longer  bread,  the  wine  being  no 
longer  wine,  both  being  transubstantiated  into  the  real  body  and 
the  real  blood  of  Christ.  And  yet,  forsooth,  this  is  an  unbloody 
sacrifice. 

The  Liturgy  falsely  ascribed  to  St.  J ames,  written  at  a  much 
later  date,  calls  it  the  "tremendous  and  unbloody  sacrifice." 
Chrysostom  calls  it  "the  fearful  and  tremendous  sacrifice." 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem  speaks  of  the  "spiritual  sacrifice  and  the 
bloodless  service  over  that  sacrifice  of  propitiation."  But  then 
Chrysostom  explains  himself  thus:  "There  is  but  one  sacrifice; 
we  do  not  offer  another  sacrifice,  but  continually  the  same;  or 
rather  we  make  a  memorial  (a>dfjyrj(T'.y)  of  the  sacrifice."  Augustin 
also  says:  "Christians  celebrate  the  memorial  of  the  same  fully 
finished  sacrifice  by  sacred  oblation  and  participation  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood."  Like  many  other  of  this  Father's  utterances, 
this  is  ambiguous;  yet  one  thing  seems  clear,  that  he  considered 
the  eucharist  nothing  more  than  a  commemorative  sacrifice. 


CHAPTKR  II. 

THE  PROTESTANT  POSITION. 
§  1.  The  Doctrine  as  Argued  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

The  Fathers  would  hardly  contradict  the  great  apostle  who,  in 
his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  labors  through  several  chapters  to 
prove  that  there  can  be  no  repetition  of  the  Saviour's  propitia- 
tory sacrifice.  His  language  needs  no  comment:  "For  such  a 
High-priest  became  us,  .  .  .  who  needeth  not  daily,  as  those 
high-priests  to  offer  up  sacrifice,  first  for  his  own  sins,  and  then 
for  the  people's;  for  this  he  did  once,  when  he  offered  up  him- 
self." (Heb.  vii.  26,  27.)  "Nor  yet  that  he  should  offer  him- 
self often,  as  the  high-priest  entereth  into  the  holy  place  every 
year  with  blood  of  others;  for  then  must  he  often  have  suf- 
fered since  the  foundation  of  the  w^orld:  but  now  once  in  the  end 
of  the  world  hath  he  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice 
of  himself.  And  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but 
after  this  the  judgment:  so  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the 
sins  of  many;  and  unto  them  that  look  for  him  shall  he  appear 
the  second  time  without  sin  unto  salvation.  For  the  law  having 
a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  and  not  the  very  image  of  the 
things,  can  never  with  those  sacrifices  wdiich  they  offered  year 
by  year-  continually,  make  the  comers  thereunto  perfect.  For 
then  would  they  not  have  ceased  to  be  offered?  because  that  the 
worshipers  once  purged  should  have  had  no  more  conscience 
of  sins."  (Heb.  ix.  25-x.  2.)  "And  every  priest  standeth 
daily  ministering  and  offering  oftentimes  the  same  sacrifices, 
which  can  never  take  away  sins;  but  this  man  after  he  had  of- 
fered one  sacrifice  for  sins  forever,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand 
of  God,  from  henceforth  expecting  till  his  enemies  be  made  his 
footstool.  For  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  forever  tliem 
that  are  sanctified."    (Heb.  x.  11-14.) 

In  view  of  these  plain  passages  of  the  inspired  writings,  well 
might  our  article  say  "the  sacrifice  by  masses,  in  which  it  is 
commonly  said  that  the  priest  doth  offer  Christ  for  the  quick  and 
the  dead,  to  have  remission  of  pain  or  guilt,  is  a  blasphemous 
fable  and  dangerous  deceit." 

(467) 


468    Of  the  One  Oblation  of  Christ,  Finished  Upon  the  Cross. 


§2.  The  Lord's-supper  Benefits  Only  Those  Present. 

The  Lord's-supper  benefits  none  but  those  who  are  engaged  in 
its  celebration.  How  can  absent  persons,  particularly  dead  per- 
sons, be  benefited  by  such  a  service?  The  living,  indeed,  may 
be  benefited  by  our  prayers  offered  at  the  Lord's  table;  but  the 
same  prayers  offered  elsewhere  would  have  the  same  effect. 

The  truth  is,  the  mass,  like  purgatory,  aggrandizes  and  enriches 
the  priesthood,  and  that  is  the  reason  that  so  much  stress  is  laid 
upon  it  Why  should  men  care  about  partaking  of  the  bread 
and  wine,  or  either  of  the  elements,  if  the  priest  can  perform 
mass  for  them  without  their  presence?  The  Council  of  Trent 
allows  of  solitary  masses,  and  issues  this  canon:  "  If  any  one  shall 
say  that  those  masses  in  w^hich  the  priest  only  communicates 
sacramentally  are  unlawful,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  abolished: 
let  him  be  accursed." 

If  a  man  can  live  in  sin  and  die  in  sin,  and  go  to  purgatory, 
and  then  be  delivered  out  of  it  and  made  meet  for  heaven  by 
masses  said  for  him  by  the  priest,  will  he  not  be  emboldened  to 
continue  in  sin  all  the  days  of  his  life?  And  is  not  this  "a  dan- 
gerous deceit?"  And  where  are  men,  and  especially  women,  so 
lost  to  the  sentiments  of  humanity  that  they  will  not  pay  all  that 
a  mercenary  priesthood  might  demand  for  masses  to  deliver  their 
friends  from  the  horrible  fire  of  purgatory?  Purgatorian  soci- 
eties are  formed,  the  members  of  which  pay  a  certain  sum  at 
stated  times  to  procure  masses  to  be  said  for  the  relief  of  the 
souls  in  purgatory.  This  is  done  in  the  enlightened  nineteenth 
century,  and  not  only  in  papist  countries,  but  in  our  own  land. 
And  what  is  this  but  "a  blasphemous  fable  and  dangerous  de- 
ceit ?  "  But  we  have  discussed  this  subject  under  the  Fourteenth 
Ai'ticle,    Of  Purgatory."    [See  Yol.  IL,  pp.  246-252.] 

§  o.  Conclusion. 

We  have  only  to  add  that,  properly  speaking,  the  Lord's-sup- 
per is  no  sacrifice.  In  the  Scripture  all  acts  of  religious  worship, 
are  indeed  figuratively  styled  sacrifices,  as  we  have  seen.  Cf.  Ps. 
li.  17;  cxli.  2;  Hos.  xiv.  2;  Heb.  xiii.  15.  So  acts  of  charity  and 
beneficence  are  styled  sacrifices,  because  we  part  with  a  portion 
of  our  substance  for  the  aid  of  the  needy.  "To  do  good  and  to 
communicate,  forget  not;  for  with  such  sacrifices  God  is  well 
pleased."    (Heb.  xiii.  16;  (f.  Phil.  iv.  18.)    So  the  consecration 


The  Protestant  Position. 


469 

  \ 


of  ourselves  to  the  service  of  God  is  called  "a  living  sacrifice, 
holy,  acceptable  unto  God,  which  is  our  reasonable  service." 
(Rom.  xii.  1.)  But  there  is  no  other  sacrifice  in  the  Lord's-sup- 
per.  It  is  called  a  eucliarist,  which  means  a  thanksgiving  serv- 
ice, because  in  it  we  render  thanks  unto  God  for  the  unspeakable 
gift  of  his  Son,  and  ofi'er  prayers  to  him  for  the  realization  of  all 
the  benefits  of  his  passion.  It  has  been  customary,  too,  at  this 
service  to  contribute  of  our  substance  to  the  poorer  members  of 
Christ's  body,  though  this  is  no  essential  part  of  the  sacrament. 
In  it  we  do  offer  the  sacrifice  of  ourselves  to  God,  presenting  the 
offering  as  it  were  upon  the  great  meritorious  atoning  sacrifice 
of  Christ,  so  strikingly  set  forth  in  symbol  in  this  ordinance. 
This  is  beautifully  expressed  in  the  Post-communion  Service: 
"O  Lord  and  Heavenly  Father^  we  thy  humble  servants  desire 
thy  fatherly  goodness  mercifully  to  accept  this  our  sacrifice  of 
praise  and  thanksgiving,"  etc. 

Some  of  the  ancients  spoke  of  the  bread  and  wine  as  an  obla- 
tion or  sacrifice,  because  these  elements  are  set  apart  for  a  re- 
ligious use  and  are  consumed  in  an  act  of  divine  service.  Some 
of  the  moderns  also  speak  in  this  style.  There  is  no  warrant  for 
it  in  Scripture,  but  if  x)roperly  understood  and  duly  guarded, 
no  harm  perhaps  w^ill  come  from  it.  The  custom,  however,  is 
more  honored  in  the  breach  than  in  the  obsei'vance. 

Jerome,  writing  to  Yigilantius,  says:  "  The  sacrifices  ought  not 
to  be  offered  to  Christ  on  every  Lord's-day,  lest  we  should  keep 
too  frequently  the  Easter  of  our  Lord's  resurrection,  and  begin 
to  Imve  not  one  Easter  in  the  year,  but  many."  We  have  noth- 
ing to  do  with  Jerome's  logic,  which,  as  is  not  uncommon  with 
him,  is  rather  limping;  but  the  fact  which  he  states  is  suggestive; 
as  the  learned  author  of  "The  Primitive  Doctrine  of  the  Eucha- 
ristic  Sacrifice,  as  Exhibited  in  Early  Liturgies,"  expresses  it: 

That  it  would  secni  that  in  Jerome's  time  the  sacrifices  were  offered  every 
Lord's-day,  not  every  day.  And  that  the  sacrifices  were  regarded  as  offered  to 
Christ.  Of  course,  if  the  sacrifices  were  ofTered  to  Christ,  the  sacrifices  could  not 
consist  of  Ills  body  and  his  blood. 

The  Fathers  sometimes  speak  of  the  eucliarist  as  a  commemo- 
rative sacrifice.  We  offer  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  symbol- 
ized by  the  bread  and  wine,  and  realized  by  faith,  to  the  eternal 
Father  as  the  satisfaction  for  our  sins.  We  commemorate  his 
sacrifice  on  the  cross.    But  this  can  hardly  warrant  the  use  of 


470    Of  the  One  Oblation  of  Christy  Finished  Upon  the  Cross, 


so  ambiguous  an  expression.  The  commemoration  or  represen- 
tation of  a  sacrifice  is  not  properly  a  sacrifice;  it  cannot  be  that 
which  it  represents.  The  metaphor  is  confused  and  misleading, 
and  without  labored  explanation  and  constant  guarding  will  mis- 
lead the  common  mind. 

The  Privy  Council,  indeed,  has  lately  decided  in  the  case  of 
Sheppard,  r.  Barnett,  that  a  belief  in  a  commemorative  sacrifice 
in  the  eucharist,  does  not  contravene  the  article,  as  Bishop  Bull 
and  other  great  authorities  of  the  Church  of  England,  use  this 
language.  Bishop  Bull  says:  "In  the  holy  eucharist  we  set  be- 
fore God  the  bread  and  wine  '  as  figures,  or  images,  of  tl:e  pre- 
cious blood  of  Christ  shed  for  us,  and  of  his  precious  body.'  They 
are  the  very  words  of  the  Clementine  Liturgy."  That  is  good 
Protestant,  scriptural  doctrine.  But  why  call  it  a  commemora- 
tive sacrifice?  We  should  not  give  the  slightest  handle  to  Eo- 
manists  and  Kitualists,  who  say: 

That  which  we  see  on  the  altar  after  consecration  is  not  a  picture  of  Christ's 
body  now  in  heaven,  but  the  consecrated  sacrament  is  the  same  body  which  was 
crucified,  and  that  the  Victim  itself  which  has  been  slain  constitutes  the  sacrifice 
in  the  eucharist. 


PART  IX. 


ARTICLE  XXI. 

Of  the  Marriage  of  Ministers. 

The  ministers  of  Christ  are  not  commanded  hij  God's  law  either  to 
vow  the  estate  of  single  life,  or  to  abstain  from  marriage;  therefore  it 
is  lawful  for  them,  as  for  all  other  Christians,  to  marry  at  their  own 
discretion,  as  they  shall  judge  the  same  to  serve  best  to  godliness. 


Introduction. 

This  corresponds  to  Article  XXXII.  of  the  Anglican  Confes- 
sion, with  some  important  changes. 

The  Reformers  were  not  very  happy  in  the  titles  which  they 
prefixed  to  the  articles;  they  were  particularly  unhappy  in  this 
case:  "Of  the  Marriage  of  Priests;"  in  the  Latin,  De  Conjiigio 
Sacerdotum.  Yet  the  article  begins,  Episcopis,  presbyteris,  et  dia- 
conis  in  the  Latin,  "Bishops,  priests  and  deacons"  in  the  En- 
glish :  as  if  all  these  were  comprehended  under  the  title  "  Priests." 
Then  there  is  an  inconsistency  in  putting  Sacerdotwm  in  the  title, 
and  presbyteris  in  the  article,  as  if  sacerdos  and  j^f'csbyter  ^^'ere  the 
same.  Sacerdos  means  priest — a  sacrificing  priest — and  is  no 
rendering  of  the  Greek  presbuteros,  which  means  presbyter  or 
elder,  as  it  is  always  rendered nn  our  version,  except  in  one  case 
in  the  plural,  "  eldest,"  John  viii.  9,  and  "  old  men,"  Act.^  ii.  17. 
But  Itptijc;  is  always  rendered  "priest,"  never  "elder."  Who 
would  think  of  calling  Aaron  the  high  elder?  or  of  calling  the 
Levitical  priests  elders?  The  ^'ovd  priest,  as  an  abridgment  of 
presbyter,  as  Milton  says  ("  New  presbyter  is  but  '  old  priest ' 
writ  large  "),  might  do,  if  priest  had  not  been  appropriated  as  the 
rendering  of  hiereus,  which  means  sacerdos,  a  sacrificing  priest. 
Romanizers  have  taken  advantage  of  this  ambiguity  to  give 
countenance  to  their  sacerdotal  pretensions.  Hooker  did  well  to 
prefer  presbyter  to  i:)riest,  though  he  was  not  always  consistent 
in  this  matter. 

(471) 


472 


The  Marriage  of  Ministers. 


Mr.  Wesley  did  well  to  change  the  title  to  "  The  Marriage  of 
Ministers,"  and  to  begin  the  article  with  "  The  ministers  of 
Christ."  As  "bishops"  in  the  Anglican  Article  designates  a 
class  or  order  of  ministers  superior  to  "priests,"  and  as  in  the 
New  Testament  bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same,  Mr.  Wesley 
preferred  to  call  those  who  were  placed  over  presbyters  "  Super- 
intendents; "  but  as  this  word  means  the  same  as  "  bishop  "  there 
is  no  objection  to  such  an  appropriation  of  the  title,  and  so  it 
was  used  in  the  post-apostolic  age.  But  as  no  distinction  is 
called  for  in  the  article,  it  is  well  to  say  simply  "  ministers  of 
Christ;"  that  comprehends  all  grades  in  the  ministry. 

Instead  of  "Christian  men"  we  have  "Christians,"  which  is 
to  be  preferred;  as  is  "best"  instead  of  "better"  in  the  last 
clause. 

The  inferential  part  of  this  article  beginning  with  "  thei;efore" 
was  not  in  the  article  as  published  in  King  Edward's  time. 

This  is  the  last  of  the  anti-Romanist  articles;  and  it  is  one 
which  at  the  time  excited  great  interest. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  ROMISH  DOCTRINE  STATED  AND  REFUTED. 
§  1.  The  Tridentine  Statement. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  the  article  is  leyeled  against 
the  enforced  celibacy  of  the  Komish  clergy.  The  Council  of 
Trent,  Canon  9,  Ses.  xxiv.,  says: 

Whoever  shall  affirm  that  i)ersons  in  holy  orders,  who  have  made  a  solemn 
profession  of  chastity,  may  contract  marriage,  and  that  the  contract  is  valid  not- 
withstanding any  ecclesiastical  law  or  vow;  and  that  to  maintain  the  contrary  is 
nothing  less  than  to  condemn  marriage;  and  that  all  persons  may  marry  who  feel 
that  though  they  shonld  make  a  vow  of  chastity  they  have  not  the  gift  thereof: 
let  him  be  accursed.  For  God  does  not  deny  his  gifts  to  those  wlio  ask  aright, 
neither  does  he  suffer  us  to  be  tempted  above  that  we  are  able. 

The  article  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  vow  of  celibacy  except 
as  it  refers  to  ministers.  But  we  may  in  passing  denounce  the 
Tridentine  sophism  insinuated  in  the  contrast  between  marriage 
and  chastity.  Everybody  knows  that  the  Scriptures  never  op- 
pose the  one  to  the  other.  Those  who  are  true  to  their  marriage 
vows  are  as  chaste  as  those  who  live  continually  in  a  state  of 
celibacy.  It  ill  becomes  those  to  say  otherwise  who  make  mar- 
riage one  of  the  seven  sacraments.  The  superior  sanctity  sup- 
posed to  reside  in  the  clerical  character  and  profession  does  not 
therefore  require  that  ministers  should  be  celibates;  indeed,  it 
rather  requires  that  they  should  enter  "the  holy  estate  of  matri- 
mony." For  marriage  "  is  an  honorable  estate  instituted  of  God 
in  the  time  of  man's  innocency,  signifying  unto  us  the  mystical 
union  that  is  between  Christ  and  his  Church;  which  holy  estate 
Christ  adorned  and  beautified  with  his  presence  and  first  mira- 
cle that  he  wrought  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  is  so  commended  of 
St.  Paul  to  be  honorable  among  all  men."  Christ  and  the  apos- 
tles speak  in  the  highest  terms  of  matrimony,  and  exhort  to 
chastity  in  this  holy  estate.  (Matt.  xix.  3-12;  1  Cor.  vii. ;  Eph. 
V.  22-33;  1  Thess.  iv.  3-8;  1  Tim.  ii.  15;  iv.  3;  v.  14;  Titus  ii.  4, 
5;  Heb.  xiii.  4;  1  Pet.  iii.  1-7.) 

How  gloriously  does  our  great  poet  descant  on  this  inspiring 

(473) 


474 


The  Marriage  of  Ministers. 


theme!  Speaking  of  our  first  parents  and  their  connubial  love, 
he  says  (Book  iv.  743-765) : 

"Whatever  hypocrites  austerely  talk 

Of  purity  and  place  and  innocence, 

Defaming  as  impure  what  God  declares 

Pure,  and  commands  to  some,  leaves  free  to  all. 

Our  Maker  bids  increase;  who  bids  abstain 

But  our  Destroyer,  foe  to  God  and  Man? 

Hail  wedded  Love!  mysterious  law,  true  source 

Of  human  offspring,  sole  propriety 

In  Paradise  of  all  things  common  else. 

By  thee  adulterous  Lust  was  driven  from  men 

Among  the  bestial  herds  to  range;  by  thee, 

Founded  in  reason,  loyal,  just,  and  pure, 

Eelations  dear,  and  all  the  charities 

Of  father,  son,  and  brother,  first  were  known. 

Far  be  it,  that  I  should  write  thee  sin  or  blame, 

Or  think  thee  unbefitting  holiest  place. 

Perpetual  fountain  of  domestic  sweets, 

"Whose  bed  is  undefiled  and  chaste  pronounced, 

Present  or  past,  as  saints  and  patriarchs  used. 

Here  Love  his  golden  shafts  employs,  here  lights 

His  constant  lamp,  and  waves  his  purple  wings, 

Eeigns  here  and  revels. 

§  2.  Inconsistency  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

One  is  amazed  at  the  inconsistency  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
which  places  matrimony  among  the  sacraments,  as  it  is  so  holy 
and  divine  an  institution,  and  yet  prohibits  it  to  the  clergy  be- 
cause of  tlieir  great  sanctity. 

"Were  not  the  Jewish  priests  holy?  or,  at  least,  was  not  superior 
holiness  required  of  them  ?  And  yet  they  were  not  only  allowed 
to  marry,  but  were  commanded  to  do  so,  and  the  high-priest  in 
particular  was  required  to  marry  a  virgin,  or  the  widow  of  a 
priest,  because  it  was  important  to  keep  the  sacerdotal  blood  pure 
and  unmixed,  as  the  priesthood  descended  from  father  to  son. 
Romanists  are  fond  of  applying  Jewish  sacerdotal  titles  to  their 
ministers,  and  claiming  peculiar  prerogatives  for  them  after  the 
Levitical  order,  and  yet  they  will  not  allow  them  to  marry. 

§3.  Marriage  of  Apostles  and  Evangelists. 

They  claim  for  their  hierarchy  a  direct,  uninterrupted  succes- 
sion from  the  apostles,  and  especially  from  Peter,  whom  they 
call  the  prince  of  the  apostles  and  the  first  pope ;  yet  this  very 
same  pope  was  a  married  man.    Our  Lord  wrought  a  miracle  to 


The  Romish  Doctrine  Stated  and  Refuted. 


475 


cure  Peter's  wife's  mother  of  a  fever,  and  said  not  one  word 
about  his  putting  away  his  wife  in  order  to  become  a  pope. 
On  the  contrary  Jesus  enjoyed  the  hospitalities  of  his  house  at 
Capernaum,  which  in  fact  appears  to  have  been  his  principal 
stopping-place.  John  seems  to  have  had  a  home  in  Jerusalem, 
and  it  might  be  inferred  that  he  had  a  family  there.  (John  xix.) 
Eusebius  (iii.  30)  says: 

Clement  gives  a  statement  of  those  apostles  that  continued  in  the  marriage 
state,  on  account  of  those  wlio  set  marriage  aside.  "And  will  thev,"  says  he, 
"reject  even  the  apostles?  Peter  and  Philip,  indeed,  had  children.  Philip  also 
gave  his  daughters  in  marriage  to  husbands,  and  Paul  does  not  demur  in  a  certain 
epistle  to  mention  his  own  wife,  whom  he  did  not  take  about  with  him  in  order 
to  expedite  his  ministry  the  better."  Since,  however,  we  have  mentioned  these 
we  shall  not  regret  to  subjoin  another  history  worthy  of  record,  from  the  same  au- 
thor, continued  in  the  seventh  book  of  the  same  work,  Stroraateus.  "They  relate," 
says  he,  "  that  the  blessed  Peter,  seeing  his  own  wife  led  away  to  execution,  was 
delighted,  on  account  of  her  calling  and  return  to  her  country,  and  that  he  cried 
to  her  in  a  consolatory  and  encouraging  voice,  addressing  her  by  name,  O  thou, 
remember  the  Lord!"  Such  was  the  marriage  of  these  blessed  ones,  and  such 
was  their  perfect  affection  toward  their  dearest  friends. 

In  the  next  chapter  Eusebius  quotes  Polycrates,  Bishop  of 
Ephesus,  as  saying:  "Philip,  one  of  the  twelve  apostles,  sleeps 
in  Hierapolis,  and  his  two  aged  virgin  daughters;  another  of  his 
daughters  rests  at  Ephesus."  But  Eusebius  seems  to  confound 
him  with  Philip  the  Evangelist,  one  of  the  seven,  who  had  four 
virgin  daughters  who  prophesied,  as  Luke  says,  in  the  Acts.  But 
this  is  a  matter  of  little  consequence,  as  the  Bomanists  will  not 
allow  evangelists  or  deacons  to  many  any  more  than  priests, 
bishops,  or  apostles.  In  his  twentieth  chapter  of  this  third 
book  Eusebius  speaks  of  the  grandchildren  of  Jude  the  Apos- 
tle, called  the  brother  of  our  Lord.  Epiphanius  says  Peter, 
Andrew,  Matthew,  and  Bartholomew  were  all  married  men.  Ter- 
tullian  did  not  think  Paul  was  married;  others  of  the  Fathers 
thought  he  was. 

Now,  we  attach  no  importance  to  the  statements  of  the  Fathers, 
whatever  Bome  may  say  of  their  authority;  but  Bomanists  can 
consistently  say  nothing  against  them.  One  thing  is  certain,  the 
Fathers  never  dreamed  that  the  apostles  or  other  ministers  were 
debarred  from  matrimony. 

§  4.  Paul's  Doctrine. 
Paul  himself  says:  "  Have  we  not  power  to  lead  about  a  sister, 


476 


The  Marriage  of  Ministers 


a  wife,  as  well  as  the  otlier  apostles  and  Cephas?"  (1  Cor.  ix. 
6.) 

The  Piomanists,  indeed,  render  adsXcpY^  yovaixa^  "a  woman,  a  sis- 
ter." The  Komanists  say  this  refers  to  the  custom  of  rich 
women  following  the  apostles  to  minister  to  them,  as  some  fol- 
lowed our  Lord.  But,  as  Whitby  says,  "this  interpretation 
seems  to  have  had  its  rise  from  Tertullian  w^hen  he  was  a  Mon- 
tanist."  TheodoL'et  mentions  it  without  seeming  to  approve  it. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  confutes  the  enemies  of  matrimony  from 
these  very  words,  and  says: 

They  carried  their  wives  about  not  as  -wives,  but  as  sisters,  to  minister  to  tliose 
who  were  mistresses  of  families,  that  so  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord  might,  without 
any  reprehensive  or  evil  suspicion,  enter  into  the  apartments  of  the  women.  This 
exposition  seemeth  (.1)  most  agreeable  to  the  words,  which  are  not  ywaiKa  a6e?.(t)7/v, 
but  a6e/.<p7/v  yvfiatKa^  which  cannot  well  be  rendered  a  sister-woman^  there  being  no 
sister  which  is  not  a  woman.  (2)  It  is  most  agreeable  to  the  context,  which 
plainly  seems  to  speak  not  of  such  wealthy  women  which  could  nourish  the  apos- 
tles out  of  their  abundance,  but  of  such  which  were  to  be  nourished  with  them  by 
others.  And  (3)  to  the  language  of  the  Jews  who  called  their  wives  sisters.  Thus 
Tobit  sailh  to  his  wife:  "  Take  no  care,  my  sister."  (Tobitv.  20.)  And  lastly  this 
seems  best  to  consult  the  credit  and  esteem  of  the  apostles,  who  could  not  without 
evil  suspicion  carry  about  with  them  single  women,  or  the  wives  of  other  men.  As 
for  the  women  who  are  said  to  have  followed  Christ,  they  Avere  none  of  his  retinue, 
they  attended  not  upon  his  person,  but  upon  his  doctrine,  and  so  they  ministered 
no  such  ground  of  suspicion. 

It  is  clear  that  Paul  here  affirms  that  "other  apostles,"  includ- 
ing those  of  note,  "the  brethren  of  the  Lord  and  Cephas,"  took 
their  wives  with  them  in  their  apostolic  journeys,  and  that  he 
had  the  right  to  do  so,  but  declined  it  for  special  reasons. 
Whether  or  not  he  had  a  wife  he  does  not  say. 

In  his  First  Epistle  to  Timothy  he  says:  "A  bishop,  then,  must 
be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife;  one  that  ruleth  well  his 
own  house,  having  his  children  in  subjection  with  all  gravity." 
So  of  the  deacons:  "Even  so  must  their  wives  be  grave.  Let  the 
deacons  be  the  husbands  of  one  wife,  ruling  their  children,  and 
their  own  houses  well."  (1.  Tim.  iii.)  Literally,  "Let  deacons 
be  men  of  one  woman: "  yfr^/i  meaning  here,  as  in  1  Cor.  ix.  5,  a 
married  woman,  a  wife,  and  the  Romanists  here  so  render  it. 
Now,  whether  this  canon  was  designed  to  exclude  agamists,  or 
bigamists,  or  digamists,  from  the  ministry,  one  thing  is  very  cer- 
tain, it  does  not  exclude  monogamists.  It  has  been  variously 
construed  to  forbid  celibacy,  successive  or  simultaneous  bigamy 


Tlie  Iioniisli  Doctrine  Stated  and  liefuted,  4:17 


or  polygamy,  and  second  marriages.  As  the  rule  obtains  in  the 
case  of  "the  widows"  mentioned  in  1  Tim.  v.  9,  who  must  have 
been  each  "  the  wife  of  one  man,"  it  cannot  mean  that  bishops 
and  deacons  must  be  married,  though  it  is  generally  best  for  min- 
isters of  every  grade,  and  indeed  all  other  men,  to  marry;  nor 
does  it  refer  to  second  marriages,  for  there  may  be  as  good  rea- 
son (as  Origen  says)  for  a  minister  to  marry  a  second  or  third 
time  as  there  was  for  him  to  marry  the  first  time.  The  injunc- 
tion seems  to  fo«rbid  polygamy  of  both  kinds:  they  were  not  to 
have  more  than  one  wife  at  a  time,  and  if  in  their  previous 
heathen  or  J-ewish  steite  they  had  unlawfully  divorced  their  wives, 
as  divorces  were  common  among  Jews  and  heathens,  and  more 
than  one  of  their  wives  were  living,  they  were  adjudged  unfit  for 
the  pastoral  or  diaconal  office,  though  they  might  be  allowed  a 
place  among  {he  laity  of  the  Church,  if  they  afterward  restricted 
themselves  to  one  wife.  So  a  "widow"  similarly  circumstanced 
might  be  a  member  of  the  Church,  but  could  not  be  taken  into 
the  number  of  the  "widows  indeed,"  specified  in  1  Tim.  v.  It 
was  necessary  to  put  the  stamp  of  reprobation  upon  polygamy 
and  polyandry,  which  were  so  common  among  the  Jews  and 
heathens  of  that  age. 

Kow  it  is  of  no  consequence  whether  the  bishop  in  this  place 
is  the  same  as  a  presbyter,  which  w^e  affirm,  or  of  the  same  order, 
though  higher  in  office,  as  the  Council  of  Trent  seems  to  assert; 
he  w^as  what  they  call  "  a  priest,"  one  of  the  sacerdotal  order. 
Paul  .says  he  might  have  one  wife,  no  more,  at  a  time;  Eome 
says  he  shall  have  none.  Does  not  this  make  the  word  of  God 
of  none  effect  by  the  traditions  of  men,  "forbidding  to  marry," 
like  the  apostates  denounced  in  the  next  chapter  (1  Tim.  iv. 
3)? 

It  was  very  audacious  in  the  Jesuit  annotators  of  the  Rhemish 
version  to  say  in  their  note  on  Titus  i.  6: 

If  any  be  without  crime,  the  liusband  of  one  wife,  ...  If  tlie  studious 
reader  peruse  all  antiquity,  he  shall  find  all  notable  bishops  and  priests  of  God's 
Church  to  have  been  single  or  continent  from  their  wives,  if  any  were  married 
before  they  came  to  the  clergy.  So  was  Paul,  and  exhorteth  all  men  to  the  like. 
So  were  all  the  apostles  after  they  folloAved  Christ. 

In  their  note  on  1  Tim.  iii.  2  they  say:  "This  exposition 
only  is  agreeable  to  the  practice  of  the  whole  Church,  the  defi- 
nition of  ancient  councils,  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers  without 


478 


The  Marriage  of  Ministers, 


exception,  and  the  apostolic  tradition."  They  unblushingly 
add: 

You  may  see  how  shamefully  the  state  of  the  new  heretical  clergy  of  our  time 
is  fallen  from  the  apostolic,  and  all  the  Fathers'  doctrine  herein;  who  do  not  only 
take  men  once  or  twice  married  before,  but,  which  was  never  heard  of  before  in 
any  person  or  part  of  the  Catholic  Church,  they  marry  after  they  be  bishops  or 
priests. 

These  notes  were  obviously  written  for  the  ignorant  and  cred- 
ulous laity  of  the  Komish  Communion;  but  it  is  amazing  that 
men  of  learning  should  perpetuate  such  arrant  falsehoods. 

§  5.  Monuments  in  the  Catacombs. 

In  addition  to  the  testimonies  cited  in  proof  that  ministers  of 
every  grade  married  in  the  primitive  ages  of  the  Church,  we  refer 
to  the  monuments  of  the  fact  found  in  the  Catacombs  of  Eome, 
which  bring  to  light  what  obtained  in  the  metropolis  of  Christen- 
dom, the  holy  mother  Church  herself,  as  the  Church  at  Rome 
is  fondly  considered  by  Eomanists. 

The  Rev.  ^Y,  H.  Withrow,  in  his  excellent  work  on  "  The  Cat- 
acombs of  Rome,"  says  (Book  III.,  chap,  iv.): 

There  is  no  trace  of  the  ascetic  spirit  or  celibate  clergy  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
in  the  inscriptions  of  the  Catacombs.  On  the  contrary  numerous  epitaphs  com- 
memorate the  honorable  marriage  of  members  of  every  ecclesiastical  grade. 

He  proceeds  to  furnish  a  number  of  specimens  of  such  epi- 
taphs, giving  the  Latin  inscriptions  themselves.^ 

§6.  Historical. 

After  awhile,  however,  exaggerated  notions  of  the  superior 
sanctity  of  celibacy  crept  into  the  Church,  derived  largely  from 
the  Jewish  Essenes,  the  Gnostics,  Montanists,  Encratites,  and  the 
like,  whose  ascetic  notions  indeed  began  to  inoculate  the  Church 
even  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  (See  Col.  ii.  18-23;  I  Tim.  iv. 
1-5.) 

Here  and  there  a  fanatic  dealt  out  denunciations  against  the 
marriage  of  the  clergy;  a  provincial  council,  as  that  of  Illibius 
in  Spain,  A.D.  300,  prohibited  it.  In  692  the  Council  in  Trullo 
decreed  that  bishops  must  observe  celibacy,  while  presbyters  and 
deacons  might  live  with  their  wives,  though  the  Roman  Church 
made  them  promise  at  their  ordination  that  they  would  not.  The 
rule  laid  down  by  the  Council  in  Trullo  has  been  always  ob- 


See  the  work  mentioned  above,  pp.  524-526. 


The  Romish  Doctrines  Stated  and  Befuted, 


479 


served  since  that  time  in  the  Greek  Church,  which  allows  priests 
to  live  with  their  wives,  but  not  to  marry  after  their  ordination. 

A  long  struggle  was  kept  up  between  the  rigid  disciplinarians 
and  the  more  moderate  party,  the  former  denouncing  all  mar- 
riage of  the  clergy,  and  the  latter  allowing  and  practicing  it. 
But  the  imperious  Hildebrand,  Pope  Gregory  VII.,  set  himself 
to  stop  it  efPectually.  He  held  a  Council  at  Kome,  A.D.  1074, 
in  which  the  marriage  of  priests  was  condemned  as  concubinage; 
and  from  that  time  to  the  present  the  Eomisli  Church  has  not 
allowed  its  clergy  to  live  in  the  holy  estate  of  matrimony.  Thou- 
sands of  them  have  lived,  and  still  live,  in  illicit  relations  with 
women,  but  marriage  is  not  allowed  among  them. 

In  1076  a  synod  was  held  at  AVinchester,  England,  which  de- 
creed that  canons  should  have  no  wives,  that  no  priest  should  mar- 
ry, and  that  no  bishop  should  ordain  any  but  celibates,  though  it 
allowed  priests  in  the  country  who  were  already  married  to  live 
with  their  wives.  Under  Anselm  (A.D.  1102)  it  was  declared 
that  neither  priest  nor  deacon,  nor  even  sub-deacon,  should  be 
ordained  who  did  not  profess  chastity—?,  e.,  celibacy — which  de- 
cree was  confirmed  by  the  Council  of  London.  The  Council  of 
Trent  followed  it  up  with  its  canons  and  curses. 

This  enforced  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  in  connection  with  the 
votive  celibacy  of  monks  and  nuns,  and  the  detestable  confes- 
sional, led  to  such  scenes  of  debauchery  among  these  ecclesias- 
tical orders  as  are  too  revolting  for  portrayal.  Those  who  want 
to  wade  through  the  sloughs  of  filth  which  constitute  so  much 
of  the  history  of  celibacy  in  the  Komish  Church  are  referred  to 
Elliott's  "Declineation  of  Eomanism,"  Book  IV.,  chapter  ii.,  and 
the  works  there  cite'd.  The  decrees  and  bulls  against  fornica- 
tion, sodomy,  bestiality,  among  the  clergy,  tell  the  dismal  tale. 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  VOW  OF  CELIBACY. 

The  article  says  that  "  ministers  are  not  commanded  by  God's 
law  either  to  vow  the  estate  of  single  life,  or  to  abstain  from 
marriage." 

§  1.  Such  Vows  Find  No  Support  in  Scripture. 

There  is  no  such  command  in  Scripture;  there  is  no  example 
of  such  vow,  but  abundance  of  testimony  to  the  contrary.  Yet 
Papists  have  the  hardihood  to  appeal  to  Scripture  for  support. 
They  refer  to  Matt.  xix.  11,  12:  "But  he  said  unto  them,  All  men 
cannot  receive  this  saying,  save  they  to  whom  it  is  given.  For 
there  are  some  eunuchs,  which  were  so  born  from  their  mother's 
womb;  and  there  are  some  eunuchs,  which  were  made  eunuchs 
of  men;  and  there  be  eunuchs,  which  have  made  themselves  eu- 
nuchs for  the  kingdom  of  heaven's  sake.  He  that  is  able  to  re- 
ceive it,  let  him  receive  it."  But  what  bearing  has  this  on  the 
subject?  Is  that  any  command  for  the  clergy,  or  any  others,  to 
take  the  vow  of  celibacy?  The  passage  simply  states  that  there 
is  one  class  of  so-called  eunuchs  constituted  of  those  who  have  no 
natural  inclination  to  marriage  or  are  impotent;  another  class 
constituted  of  those  who  are  mutilated,  as  by  Oriental  princes, 
to  take  care  of  their  women,  or  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  pe- 
culiar voices  to  sing  in  the  Pope's  Sistine  Chapel,  to  the  ever- 
lasting disgrace  of  "his  Holiness."  Then  there  is  a  third  class 
constituted  of  those  who  made  themselves  eunuchs,  not  in  a  lit- 
eral sense  (as  in  the  case  of  Origen),  but  metaphorically,  in  the 
sense  of  subduing  natural  inclinations,' so  as  to  be  at  liberty  to 
promote  the  cause  of  the  gospel  in  such  a  way  as  cannot  be  done 
in  the  married  state.  {  Cf.  1  Cor.  vii.  26,  34;  ix.  5,  15,  16.)  In 
the  first  instance,  a  man's  will  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter; 
in  the  second,  it  is  against  his  will;  in  the  third,  it  is  with  his 
will,  concurring,  however,  with  divine  aid.  Now,  our  Lord  says, 
"He  that  is  able  to  receive  it,  let  him  receive  it;  "  implying  that 
some  cannot  live  in  celibacy,  but  permitting  those  to  do  so  who 
(480J 


The  Vow  of  Celihacy, 


481 


can  and  are  willing  to  do  it  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven's  sake; 
otherwise  it  seems  to  be  the  duty  of  all  to  marry.   (Heb.  xiii.  4.) 

This  passage,  therefore,  gives  no  more  countenance  to  the  en- 
forced celibacy  of  the  clergy,  or  of  monks  and  nuns,  than  Luke 
xviii.  29,  which  Bishop  Hay  absurdly  brings  forward.    He  says : 

This  is  also  manifest  from  the  special  reward  promised  by  our  Saviour,  and 
betowed  in  heaven  upon  those  >vho  lead  a  chaste  life:  our  Saviour  says,  "Amen, 
I  say  unto  you,  there  is  no  man  that  hath  left  house,  or  parents,  or  wife,  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven's  sake,  who  shall  not  receive  much  more  in  this  present  time, 
and  in  the  world  to  come  life  everlasting." 

If  he  had  quoted  the  parallel  passage  in  Matt.  xix.  29,  he 
would  have  had  also  children  and  lands,  and  brethren  and  sisters; 
indeed,  some  of  them  are  in  Luke,  and  more  than  all  these  in 
Luke  xiv.  26:  "If  any  man  come  to  me,  and  hate  not  his  father, 
and  mother,  and  wife,  and  children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters, 
yea,  and  his  own  life  also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple."  But  what 
do  all  such  passages  prove?  That  it  is  not  lawful  for  a  disciple 
of  Christ  to  have  a  wife?  Then  he  must  not  have  parents,  broth- 
ers, or  sisters,  or  children;  he  must  not  have  houses  or  lands;  in 
a  word,  he  must  not  have  himself;  he  must  commit  suicide.  The 
plain  meaning  is,  and  Bishop  Hay  couRl  not  escape  it,  that  when 
the  cause  of  Christ  demands  it,  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven  be 
thereby  promoted,  we  must  part  with  our  most  valued  posses- 
sions, our  dearest  friends,  and  even  our  own  lives,  looking  for 
the  recompense  beyond  this  world. 

So  of  1  Cor.  vii.,  wdiich  is  pressed  into  the  argument  for  the  «f 
celibacy  of  the  priesthood.  There  is  no  reference  to  ministers 
apart  from  others  in  that  chapter.  The  apostle  counsels  those 
of  the  Corinthians  who  could  do  so  to  remain  single,  "  because 
-  of  the  present  distress" — the  persecutions  and  trials  through 
which  the  Church  was  passing,  when  there  was  frequently  but  a 
step  between  the  font  and  the  stake.  (1  Cor.  xv.  29-32.)  They 
would  thus  be  saved  from  many  cares  and  anxieties,  and  attend 
upon  the  Lord  without  distraction.  But  if  they  had  not  the 
special  gift  of  continence,  he  advises  them  to  enter  into  the  con- 
jugal state;  "for,"  says  he,  "it  is  better  to  marry  than  to  burn." 
The  whole  scope  of  the  chapter  is  directly  against  the  vow  of 
celibacy,  or  the  enforced  state  of  a  single  life,  no  distinction  be- 
ing made  between  clergy  and  laity. 

Some  of  the  more  monastic  of  Romish  polemics  press  into 
31  Vol.  II. 


482 


The  Marriage  of  Ministers. 


tlieir  service  Rev.  xiv.  4:  "  These  are  they  which  were  not  defiled 
witli  women:  for  tliey  are  virgins."  A  very  slight  acquaintance 
with  the  style  of  the  Apocalypse  would  teach  them  that  this  has 
no  reference  to  literal  virginity.  It  simply  means  that  the  hun- 
dred and  forty  and  four  thousand — a  symbolical  number — there 
mentioned  were  free  from  uncleanness,  the  symbol  of  idolatry. 

There  is  one  profound  argument  which  we  have  reserved  for 
the  last.  Romanists  are  obliged  to  admit  that  in  the  first  age 
married  persons  were  admitted  to  the  ministerial  office;  but  this, 
they  say,  was  because  other  persons  were  so  scarce:  our  Lord 
and  his  apostles,  forsooth,  would  have  chosen  single  men  for  the 
ministry,  but  they  were  not  to  be  had,  so  they  were  obliged  to 
take  married  men.  In  after  times  single  men  w^ere  not  scarce, 
and  so  they  were  chosen,  and  married  men  rejected.  We  were 
going  to  ask  why  they  were  permitted  to  retain  their  wives— as 
we  see  they  were  for  several  centuries — but  perhaps  it  is  bettrer 
to  leave  that  argument  unanswered.  It  will  serve  to  show  the 
utter  hopelessness  of  their  cause. 

§  2.  Grounds  of  the  Romish  Policy. 

Any  one  can  see  plainly  enough  w^hy  the  Pope  and  the  hierar- 
chy of  Rome  are  so  strenuous  in  enforcing  the  celibacy  of  the 
clergy,  and  of  monks  and  nuns,  and  why  they  so  hate  and  de- 
nounce Luther,  Cranmer,  and  other  Reformers,  for  breaking 
the  accursed  bonds,  and  proclaiming  their  freedom.  The  Pope 
and  his  prelates  want  to  have  absolute  control  of  the  priestly 
and  monastic  orders,  and  so  they  doom  them  to  a  life  of  celibacy, 
that  they  might  be  made  more  available  as  ecclesiastical  janiza- 
ries, available  for  all  places  and  occasions  throughout  their  spir- 
itual empire.  They  are  bound  by  no  domestic  ties,  restricted  to 
no  locality,  ready  at  a  moment's  notice  to  go  whithersoever  their 
services  are  needed.  This,  indeed,  gives  amazing  power  to  the 
hierarchy,  and  wonderfully  subserves  all  its  projects  and  inter- 
ests; and  that  is  the  reason  why  the  oft-repeated  and  passionate 
requests  of  the  clergy  to  be  allowed  to  marry,  to  save  themselves 
from  a  life  of  misery  in  contending  against  nature— or  doing 
Avorse,  yielding  to  its  demands  by  living  in  debauchery— has  been, 
still  is,  and  is  likely  to  be,  persistently  and  emphatically  refused. 
§  3.  Jeremy  Taylor  on  Clerical  Marriage. 

We  conclude  this  discussion  by  a  passage  from  Jeremy  Tay- 


The  Vow  of  Celibacy. 


483 


lor's  curious,  learned,  and  masterly  disertation,  "  Of  the  Marriage 
of  Bishops  and  Priests"  ("  Works,"  iii.  579).  Speaking  of  the 
law  requiring  celibacy,  he  says : 

The  law  of  the  Church  was  an  evil  law,  made  by  an  authority  violent  and 
usurped,  insufficient  as  to  that  cliarge;  it  was  not  a  law  of  God;  it  was  against 
the  rights  and  against  the  necessities  of  nature;  it  was  unnatural  and  unreasonable; 
it  was  not  for  edification  of  the  Church;  it  was  no  advantage  to  spiritual  life: 
it  is  a  law,  therefore,  that  is  against  public  honesty,  because  it  did  openly  and  se- 
cretly introduce  dishonesty.  It  had  nothing  of  the  requisites  of  a  good  law ;  it  had 
no  consideration  of  human  frailty  nor  of  human  comforts;  it  was  neither  necessary 
nor  profitable  nor  innocent;  neither  fitted  to  time  nor  place  nor  person:  it  was  not 
accepted  by  them  that  could  not  bear  it;  it  was  complained  of  by  them  that  could; 
it  was  never  admitted  in  the  East;  it  Avas  fought  against  and  declaimed  and  railed 
at  in  the  West;  and,  at  last,  is  laid  aside  in  the  Churches,  especially  of  the  north, 
as  the  most  intolerable  and  most  unreasonable  tyranny  in  the  world;  for  it  was 
not  to  be  endured  that,  upon  the  pretense  of  an  imreasonable  perfection,  so  much 
impurity  should  be  brought  into  the  Church,  and  so  many  souls  thrust  down  to 
hell. 


PART  X. 
ARTICLE  XXII. 

Of  the  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  Churches, 

It  is  7iot  necessary  that  rites  and  ceremonies  should  in  all  places  he 
the  same,  or  exactly  alike;  for  they  have  been  always  different,  and 
may  he  changed  according  to  tJie  diversity  of  countries,  times,  and 
men's  manners,  so  that  nothing  be  ordained  against  God's  word. 
Whosoever,  through  his  private  judgment,  ivillingly  and  p>urposely, 
doth  openly  break  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church  to  which  he 
belongs,  which  are  not  repugnant  to  the  wordof  God,  and  are  ordained 
and  approved  by  common  authority,  ought  to  be  rebuked  openly,  that 
others  may  fear  to  do  the  like,  as  one  that  offendeth  against  the  com- 
mon order  of  theCJiurch,  and  icoundeth  the  consciences  of  weak  breth- 
ren. 

Every  jyarticular  Church  may  ordain,  change,  or  abolish  rites  and 
ceremonies  J  so  that  all  things  may  be  doyie  to  edification. 


Introduction. 

This  article  corresponds  to  Article  XXXIV.  of  the  Anglican 
Confession,  except  a  few  verbal  changes  for  the  better.  Thus  vve 
have,  "It  is  not  necessary  that  rites  and  ceremonies  should  in  all 
places  be  the  same,  or  exactly  alike ;  for  they  have  been  always 
different,"  instead  of,  *'It  is  not  necessary  that  traditions  and 
ceremonies  be  in  all  places  one,  or  utterly  like;  for  at  all  times 
they  have  been  diverse;"  and  "rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
Church  to  which  he  belongs,  which  are  not  repugnant  to  the 
word  of  God,  and  are  ordained,"  instead  of  "traditions  and  cere- 
monies of  the  Church,  which  be  not  repugnant  to  the  word  of 
God,  and  be  ordained;"  and  "one  that  offendeth,"  instead  of  "he 
that  offendeth."  The  clause  "  and  hurteth  the  authority  of  the 
magistrate"  is  omitted,  perhaps,  because  it  savors  of  Eras- 

(484) 


The  Bites  and  Ceremonies  of  Churches.  485 


tiauism;  and  "the"  before  "weak."  The  last  sentence  is 
greatly  changed.  In  the  x\nglican  it  reads:  "  Every  particular  or 
national  Church  hath  authority  to  ordain,  change,  and  abolish 
ceremonies  or  rites  of  the  Church,  ordained  only  by  man's  au- 
thority, so  that  all  things  be  done  to  edifying."  The  omission 
of  the  word  "  national "  was  highly  proper,  as  the  article  was 
designed  for  an  ecclesiastical  communion  in  a  country  where 
there  was  no  national  Church. 


CHAPTER  I. 


RITES  AND  CEREMONIES  DEFINED  AND  CLASSIFIED. 

§1.  Rites  and  Ceremonies  Defined. 

It  was  well  to  substitute  "rites  and  ceremonies"  for  "tradi- 
tions "  in  the  title  of  the  article,  and  "  rites  "  for  "  traditions  "  in 
the  first  paragraph,  thus  conforming  it  to  the  language  of  the 
second  paragraph,  "ceremonies  or  rites."  We  use  the  copu- 
lative "  and"  in  this  paragraph  as  in  the  former.  The  copula- 
tive and  disjunctive  are  used  interchangeably  in  cases  like  this, 
where  one  term  is  simply  explanatory  of  another.  The  word  tra- 
dition in  the  English  article  does  not  refer  to  doctrine,  but  to 
ceremony,  which  is  handed  down  from  age  to  age.  But  the  term 
is  ill-chosen,  and  it  was  well  to  change  it.  Bishop  Tomline 
says: 

The  word  tradition  is  not  here  used  in  the  same  sense  in  wliich  it  was  used  in  the 
explanation  of  the  Sixth  [our  Fifth]  Article.  It  there  signified  unwritten  articles 
of  faith,  reputed  to  be  derived  from  Christ  and  his  apostles:  in  this  article  it  means 
customs  or  practices  relative  to  the  external  worship  of  God,  which  had  been 
delivered  down  from  former  times;  that  is,  in  the  Sixth  Article,  traditions  meant 
traditional  doctrines,  of  pretended  divine  autiiority;  and  in  this  it  means  tradi- 
tional practices  acknowledged  to  be  of  human  institution. 

So  Dr.  Burnet:  "  The  word  means  the  same  as  is  expressed 
immediately  by  the  word  ceremonies,  which  is  only  explanatory; 
and  which  the  Church  afterward  calls  rites,  supposing  them  the 
same  with  ceremonies." 

Some  of  the  older  ritualists  distinguish  between  rites  and 
ceremonies;  but  they  are  rather  nebulous  in  their  statements. 
Thus  Hook: 

Dr.  Nichols  says  that  the  cross  in  baptism,  and,  it  may  be,  the  marriage 
ring,  are  perhaps  the  only  ceremonies  enjoined  in  the  book  of  1662  which  can 
in  a  strict  and  proper  sense  be  called  so.  But,  as  is  observed  in  a  note  to  Stephen's 
Common  Prayer  Book,  with  Xotes,  Dr.  Nichols  uses  ceremony  in  a  limited 
sense,  which  is  by  no  means  sanctioned  by  our  best  writers  and  divines.  Cere- 
inonic,  in  its  classical  sense,  was  a  general  term  for  worship.  Johnson's  definition, 
outward  rite,  external  form  in  rdt'f/ion,  is  fully  supported  by  his  references,  and  espe- 
cially Hooker,  also,  throughout  his  book  applies  it  to  all  that  is  external  in  wor- 
(486) 


Rites  and  Ceremonies  Defined  and  Classified. 


487 


ship.  It  seems  that  rite  and  ceremony  are  thus  to  be  distinguished :  A  rite  is  an  act 
of  religious  worship,  whether  inchiding  ceremonies  or  not;  a  ceremony  is  any  ])ar- 
ticular  of  religious  worship  (included  in  a  rite)  which  prescribes  action,  position, 
or  even  the  assumption  of  any  particular  vesture.  The  latter  sense  is  plainly  rec- 
ognized by  Hooker  ("  Eccl.  Pol.,"  book  iv.,  sec.  1 ;  book  v.,  sec.  29.)  The  preface  to 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  speaks  first  of  common  prayer,  viz.,  the  offices  intended 
of  the  common  and  periodical  use  of  all  at  stated  times;  next,  of  the  administration 
of  the  sacrament;  next,  of  other  rites  and  ceremonies — i.  e.,  the  occasional  serv- 
ices, whether  public  or  private,  and  all  the  methods  of  administration  which  these 
involved.  Now  among  ceremonies,  the  prescribed  procession  in  the  marriage  and 
burial  services,  the  standing  at  certain  parts  of  the  service,  the  bowing  at  the  name 
of  Jesus  as  prescribed  by  the  eighteenth  canon,  ought  to  be  included. 

It  may  be  observed  that  the  eighteenth  canon  expressly  calls 
the  bowing  just  mentioned  a  ceremony,  as  also,  in  the  thirtieth 
canon,  the  sign  of  the  cross.  (See  Hooker,  book  iii.,  sec.  11,  and 
book  v.,  sec.  6.)  Neither  the  word  rite  nor  tradition  is  used  in  the 
preface  of  the  Prayer  Book.  The  word  ceremonij  is  there  used 
exactly  in  the  same  sense  as  that  in  which  all  these  words  are 
used  in  the  article;  indeed,  the  one  is  evidently  copied  from  the 
other.  In  treating  of  Ceremonies:  Why  Some  be  Abolished 
and  Some  Ketained,"  the  preface  says: 

Of  such  ceremonies  as  be  used  in  the  Church,  and  have  had  their  beginning  by 
tlic  institution  of  man,  some  at  the  first  were  of  good  intent  and  purpose  devised, 
and  yet  at  length  turned  to  vanity  and  s-jperstition;  some  entered  into  the  Church 
by  indiscreet  devotion,  and  such  a  zeal  as  was  without  knowledge;  and  for  because 
they  were  winked  at  in  the  beginning,  they  grew  daily  to  more  and  worse  abuses, 
which  not  only  for  their  unprofitableness,  but  also  because  they  have  much  blinded 
the  people,  and  obscured  the  glory  of  God,  are  worthy  to  be  cut  away  and  clean  re- 
jected; otiiers  there  be,  which,  although  they  have  been  devised  by  man,  yet  it 
is  thought  good  to  reserve  them  still  as  well  for  a  decent  order  in  the  Churcli 
(for  the  which  they  were  first  devised)  as  because  they  pertain  to  edification, 
whereunto  all  things  done  in  the  Church  (as  the  apostle  teacheth)  ought  to  be  re- 
ferred. 

The  preface  then  proceeds  to  discuss  the  principles  laid  down 
in  the  article. 

That  the  words  are  here  used  synonymously  may  be  inferred 
from  their  use  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  Art.  XV.,  where  the 
Latin  title  is,  De  Bitibiis  Ecetesiasticis,  and  the  English,  "  Of  Re- 
ligious Ceremonies,"  "  De  Ritihus  Ecclesiasticis  docent^'  says  the 
Latin  article,  ''quod  rifus,''  etc.    In  the  English: 

Concerning  Ecclesiastical  Ceremonies,  they  teach  that  these  ceremonies  ought 
to  be  observed,  which  can  be  attended  to  without  sin,  and  which  promote  peace 
and  good  order  in  the  Church,  such  as  certain  holy  days,  festivals,  etc.  Concern- 
ing matters  of  this  kind,  however,  caution  should  be  observed,  lest  the  consciences 


488 


Tlie  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  ChurcJtes, 


of  men  be  burdened  as  though  such  observances  were  necessary  to  salvation.  Men 
should  also  be  apprised  that  human  traditionary  observances,  instituted  with  a 
view  to  appease  God,  to  merit  his  favor,  and  make  satisfaction  lor  sins,  are  con- 
trarv  to  the  gospel  and  the  doctrine  fjf  faith.  \Vherefore  vows  and  traditionary 
observances  concerning  meats,  days,  etc.,  instituted  to  merit  grace  and  make  sat- 
isfaction for  sins,  are  useless  and  contrary  to  the  gospel. 

AVebster's  definition  of  "rite"  is  generally  accepted:  "  The  act 
of  performing  divine  or  solemn  service,  as  established  by  law, 
precept,  or  custom;  formal  act  of  religion,  or  other  solemn  duty; 
a  religious  ceremony  or  usage.  Synonyms:  form;  ceremony; 
observance;  ordinance."  "Ceremony"  he  defines:  "Outward 
rite,  external  form  in  religion," 

So  Watson: 

Ceremony,  an  assemblage  of  several  actions,  forms,  and  circumstances,  serving 
to  render  a  thing  magnificent  and  solemn.  Applied  to  religious  service,  it  sig- 
nifies the  external  rites  and  manner  in  which  the  ministers  of  religion  perform 
their  sacred  functions,  and  direct  or  lead  the  worship  of  the  people. 

§  2.  Two  Kinds  of  Ceremonies. 

It  would  have  been  well,  perhaps,  if  the  Reformers  had  con- 
fined themselves  to  the  use  of  one  word,  namely,  "  ceremonies." 

Of  these  there  are  obviously  two  kinds.  The  first  kind  con- 
sists of  all  those  acts  which  are  appointed  in  the  celebration  of 
those  parts  of  divine  worship  which  are  required  in  the  holy 
Scriptures.  There  must  be  public  prayer,  psalmody,  reading 
and  expounding  the  Scriptures,  administration  of  the  sacraments, 
ordination  to  the  ministry,  exercise  of  discipline,  and  the  like. 
But  the  Scriptures  nowhere  prescribe  in  what  manner  these  acts 
shall  be  performed.  Some  modes  must  be  agreed  upon,  or  there 
can  be  no  public  worship  or  discipline  in  the  Church.  Then 
there  is  a  second  kind,  which,  by  general  consent,  is  considered 
expedient  and  good  to  the  use  of  edifying;  these  consist  of  spe- 
cial services  for  matrimony,  burial  of  the  dead,  dedication  of 
clmrches,  commemoration  of  the  gi^eat  facts  of  Cliristianity,  and 
occasional  fasting,  thanksgiving,  and  other  solemnities.  These 
services,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  are  to  be  conducted,  come 
witliin  the  provision  of  this  article  and  of  that  in  the  Augsburg 
Confession. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  TWO  CLASSES  OF  CEREMONIES. 
§1.  Ceremonies:  Required  and  Expedient. 
With  regard  to  the  lirst  class  of  ceremonies  none  but  fanatics 
take  aay  exception  to  them. 

With  regard  to  the  second  (including  also  the  first)  Nicholls 
says: 

Ceremony  is  of  Latin  origin,  though  some  of  the  best  critics  in  antiquity  are 
divided  in  tlieir  opinions,  in  assigning  from  what  original  it  is  derived.  Joseph 
Scaliger  proves  by  analogy  that  as  sanctimonia  comes  from  mnclus,  so  does  ceremonia 
from  the  old  Latin  cerus,  which  signifies  sacred,  or  holy.*  The  Christian  writers 
have  adopted  the  word  to  signify  external  rites  and  customs  in  the  worship  of 
God,  which,  though  they  are  not  of  the  essence  of  religion,  yet  contribute  much 
to  good  order  and  conformity  in  the  Church.  If  there  were  no  ornaments  in  the 
Church,  and  no  prescribed  order  of  administration,  tlie  common  people  couUl 
liardly  be  persuaded  to  show  more  reverence  in  the  sacred  assemblies  than  in 
other  ordinary  places,  where  they  meet  only  for  business  or  diversion.  Upon  this 
account  St.  Augustin  says:  "No  religion,  either  true  or  false,  can  subsist  without 
some  ceremonies."  Notwithstanding  this,  some  persons  have  laid  it  down  as  a 
fundamental  principle  of  religion,  that  no  ceremony  or  human  constitution  is 
justifiable,  but  what  is  expressly  narrated  in  the  word  of  God.  This  dogma  Mr. 
Cartwright  has  reduced  into  a  syllogistical  demonstration:  "Wheresoever  faith 
is  wanting,  there  is  sin:  in  every  action  not  commanded  faith  is  wanting;  ergo, 
in  every  action  not  commanded  there  is  sin."  But  the  falsity  of  this  syllogism 
is  shown  at  large  by  Hooker  in  his  second  book  of  "Ecclesiastical  Polity,"  by  argu- 
ments drawn  from  the  indifference  of  many  human  actions,  from  the  natural  liberty 
God  has  afforded  us,  from  the  examples  of  holy  men  in  Scripture  who  have  dif- 
ferently used  this  liberty,  and  from  the  power  which  the  Church  by  divine  au- 
thority is  vested  with.  Tliat  apostolical  injunction,  "  Let  all  things  be  done  Avitli 
decency  and  in  order"  (1  Cor.  xiv.  40),  is  a  much  better  demonstration  that  the 
Church  has  a  power  to  enjoin  proper  ceremonies  for  the  good  order  and  comeli- 
ness of  ecclesiastical  conventions  than  Mr.  Cartwright's  syllogism  is  for  the  con- 
tempt of  them  when  enjoined. 

§  2.  Ceremonies  Lawful. 

That  it  is  not  wrong  to  use  ceremonies  which  are  not  positively 

*■  Webster  states  that  Crerimovm  comes  "from  Crere,  an  old  city  of  Etrurin, 
which  stood  in  a  very  ancient  relidous  connection  with  Eome;  according  to  oth- 
ers, from  Ceres,  equivalent  to  Cei^eris  sacra." — T. 

(489) 


490 


The  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  Churches, 


prescribed  in  the  Scriptures  is  evident  from  the  example  of  our 
Lord  and  his  disciples.  There  is  no  divine  prescription  on  rec- 
ord for  the  synagogue  worship;  for  the  Feast  of  Dedication;  for 
the  recumbent  position  at  the  Passover,  which  was  first  eaten 
standing;  for  the  canonical  hours  of  prayer;  for  the  use  of  wine 
in  the  Passover;  for  the  tithing  of  herbs,  etc.;  yet  Christ  and  his 
disciples  complied  with  all  these  observances  which  were  then 
established  in  the  Jewish  Church.  Calvin,  Bruce,  and  others  of 
the  Reformed  or  Presbyterian  party — not  to  mention  Luther  and 
his  followers — objected  not  to  the  use  of  ceremonies  of  human 
constitution,  certain  gestures,  vestments,  liturgies,  and  the  like. 
They  only  insisted  that  they  should  be  few  and  ^^imple,  free 
from  all  taint  of  superstition,  and  helps,  not  hinderances,  to  de- 
votion. 

§  3.  By  What  Authority  Shall  Ceremonies  be  Prescribed? 

The  great  question  is,  By  what  authority  shall  these  ceremo- 
nies be  prescribed? 

The  English  Reformers,  who  vrere  Erastian  in  their  views,  as- 
sociate the  magistrate  with  the  Church,  and  speak  of  "  every  par- 
ticular or  national  Church,"  as  having  the  authority.  This  was 
designed  to  oppose  papal  usurpation.  The  Pope  had  erased  all 
distinctions  between  national  Churches,  in  order  to  have  uniform- 
ity of  discipline  and  worship,  as  well  as  of  doctrine.  He  could 
not,  indeed,  do  this  absolutely;  there  always  have  been  diversi- 
ties of  administration — not  only  in  the  primitive  Church,  where 
uniformity  was  not  cared  for,  but  also  after  the  supremacy  of 
the  Pope  was  recognized.  The  Council  of  Basle,  in  1433,  al- 
lowed a  branch  of  the  Hussites  to  commune  in  both  kinds;  hence 
they  are  called  "  Calixtines."  At  the  Synod  of  Brest-Litofsky 
in  1596,  headed  by  the  Metropolitan  of  Kieff,  many  who  had  ad- 
hered to  the  Greek  faith  in  Galicia,  Hungary,  Poland,  and  Lit- 
tle Piussia,  submitted  to  the  Pope,  but  rejected  the  Filioqne  and 
retained  the  Slavonic  language  and  ritual  in  their  worship. 
These  were  called  Uniates,  or  United  Greeks.  In  England, 
before  the  Reformation,  as  the  Preface  to  the  Prayer  Book  says, 
"  Heretofore  there  has  been  great  diversity  in  saying  and  sing- 
ing in  churches  within  this  realm;  some  following  Salisbury 
use,  some  Hereford  use,  and  some  the  use  of  Bangor,  some  of 
York,  some  of  Lincoln."  The  pope  would  have  reduced  them 
all  to  uniformity;  but  he  was  not  omnipotent,  though  he  professed 


The  Tico  Classes  of  Ceremonies, 


491 


to  be  infallible.  Even  now,  what  a  difference  there  is  in  the  ruan- 
ner  in  which  Papists  celebrate  worship  in  enlightened  Protest- 
ant countries  and  \i\  Pomisli  countries. 

However,  the  Eomish  theory  is,  that  there  are  to  be  no  differ- 
ences occasioned  by  various  countries,  peoples,  languages,  and 
the  like;  all  such  distinctions  are  ignored,  Kome  governs  the 
world. 

Now,  in  opposition  to  this  arrogant  assumption,  the  Anglican 
Reformers  held  that  "  every  particular  or  national  Church  hath 
authority"  in  the  premises.  They  were  essentially  Erastian. 
Thus  in  the  Thirty-sixth  Article,  the  "  Book  of  Consecration  of 
Archbishops  and  Bishops,  and  Ordering  of  Priests  and  Deacons  " 
is  spoken  of  as  "  confirmed  by  authority  of  Parliament; "  and  the 
Thirty-seventh  Article  asserts  the  Queen's  supremacy  in  Church 
as  well  as  State,  only  restricting  her  majesty  from  "  ministering 
God's  word  or  the  sacraments."  Article  XXI.  says,  "  General 
Councils  may  not  be  gathered  together  without  the  commandment 
and  will  of  princes."  No  Bishop  can  be  consecrated  without  the 
cong'e  cVelire  of  the  Crown.  No  act  of  that  sham  synod  called 
"  Convocation  "  is  of  any  binding  force  till  sanctioned  by  Parlia- 
ment, while  Parliament  can  pass  what  act  it  pleases  touching  the 
Church,  establishing  or  disestablishing,  endowing  or  disendow- 
ing it.  Lay  courts  determine  which  of  contending  parties  are 
right  or  wrong  in  regard  to  baptism  and  the  tremendously  impor- 
tant matters  of  orimtation,  vestments,  lights,  incense,  and  other 
ceremonies  in  administering  the  Lord's-supper,  and  the  like.  If 
all  this  is  not  Erastianism,  we  should  like  for  Mr.  Wheatley  to 
tell  us  what  it  is. 

Now,  the  article  as  we  have  it  revised,  keeps  us  from  both  ex- 
tremes: popish  assumption  on  the  one  hand,  and  Erastianism  on 
the  other.  We  suffer  neither  pope  nor  Caesar  to  meddle  with 
our  religion.  AVe  will  receive  both  into  our  communion  on  the 
same  terms  on  which  we  receive  any  other  repentant  sinner;  but 
they  must  be  subject  to  the  authority  of  the  Church,  and  not  at- 
tempt to  usurp  authority  over  it. 

By  a  particular  Church  our  article  does  not  mean  a  national 
Church — we  recognize  no  national  Church — nor  does  it  mean  a 
separate  congregation,  according  to  the  principles  of  independ- 
ency. We  do  not,  indeed,  deny  that  any  company  of  Christians, 
small  or  large,  may  unite  together  on  an  independent  platform, 


492 


Tlie  Bites  and  Ceremonies  of  Churches. 


and  agree  upon  a  form  of  doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship,  to 
suit  themselves.  In  that  case,  the  principle  of  the  article  still 
holds;  for  no  member  of  that  particular  Church  is  at  liberty, 
"  through  his  private  judgment,  willingly  and  purposely,  to  openly 
break  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church  to  which  he  be- 
longs." If  he  does  this,  he  ought  "to  be  rebuked  openly; "  and 
if  he  persists  in  his  contumacious  course,  he  must  be  excluded 
from  the  fellowship  of  that  particular  Church.  No  other  au- 
thority is  needed  for  this  but  simply  the  law  of  self-preserva- 
tion, which  belongs  to  bodies  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  to  bodies 
civil  and  social,  or  to  the  individual.  In  cases  of  this  sort  the 
apostle  considered  it  sufficient  to  say:  "But  if  any  man  seem  to 
be  contentious,  we  have  no  such  custom,  neither  the  churches  of 
God."    (1  Cor.  xi.  16;  cf.  1  Cor.  xiv.) 

If  several  of  such  local  societies  unite  together  for  their  mu- 
tual benefit  and  greater  efficacy,  they  constitute  a  particular 
Church  in  another  sense.  They  agree,  either  in  general  con- 
vention, or  by  their  representatives,  to  conform  to  a  certain  plat- 
form of  discipline  and  worship,  as  well  as  doctrine.  They  enter 
the  Connection  voluntarily;  they  voluntarily  remain  in  it.  AVhile 
they  are  in  it  they  are  bound  by  laws  of  their  own  enactment  to 
conform  to  this  platform  while  they  remain  in  the  fellowship 
of  this  particular  or  connectional  Church.  If  any  of  the  con- 
stituent bodies  of  this  Connection,  or  any  individual  belonging 
to  them,  "openly  break  the  rites  and  ceremonies  "  of  the  Connec- 
tion into  which  they  have  entered,  they  ought  to  be  rebuked 
openly,  as  they  act  contumaciously  and  in  bad  faith,  "  offending 
against  the  common  order  of  the  Church,  and  wounding  the 
consciences  of  weak  brethren." 

Order  is  lieaven's  first  law. 

To  maintain  order  there  must  be  authority  and  government. 
This  correlates  subjection  and  obedience. 

§4.  Conclusion. 

L'Estrange  says: 

It  may  be  objected  tliat  my  superior  may  enjoin  me  such  a  la-w  as  my  con- 
science tells  me  is  scandalous  to  my  brother,  not  convenient,  not  edifying,  etc. 
What  shall  I  do  in  this  condition?  If  I  conform,  I  sin  against  my  conscience 
(Rom.  xiv.  23);  if  I  do  not,  I  sin  ag'ainst  his  authority.  Answer:  That  text  of 
Rom.  xiv.  23  hath  only  reference  to  things  not  only  indifferent  in  their  own  nat- 
ure, but  left  free  from  any  superior  command  inter^^osing,  and  therefore  the  text 


Two  Classes  of  Cereifionies, 


493 


is  not  ad  idem;  for  though  sucli  laws  may  be  of  tilings  indifferent,  yet  being  com- 
manded by  just  autliority,  the  indifierence  by  that  command  determineth,  and 
tliey  become  necessary. 

This  is  a  sound  principle,  however  much  it  may  be  abused  by 
Papists  on  the  one  hand  and  by  Erastians  on  the  other.  Chris- 
tianity makes  no  provision  for  solitary  discipleship.    It  devel- 
ops itself  into  a  living  organism.    The  Church,  or  society  of  the 
faithful,  is  not  a  mere  accident  of  Christianity;  it  is  normal,  vis- 
ceral, essential;  religion  would  become  extinct  without  it.  AlF 
who  were  converted  by  the  ministry  of  the  apostles  and  their  as- 
sociates were  instantly  incorporated  into  the  Church.    It  may 
well  be  supposed  that  in  many  instances  those  thus  incorporated 
would  have  preferred  other  ceremonies  to  those  which  were  es- 
tablished in  the  particular  Church  into  which  they  were  admitted. 
But  what  of  that  ?  Was  there  ever  a  society— benevolent,  political, 
ecclesiastical,  or  of  any  other  kind — in  which  the  preferences  of 
every  individual  member  were  met?   The  thing  is  preposterous. 
Particular  preferences  have  to  bo  relinquished  in  view  of  the 
advantages  derived  from  the  association.    If,  after  uniting  with 
any  particular  Church,  a  man  satisfies  himself  that  some  of  the 
ceremonies  are  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and  not  tending  to 
edification,  and  he  cannot  get  them  changed,  he  should  withdraw 
from  its  communion.    This  was  the  case  with  the  Reformers. 
They  believed  that  many  things  required  by  the  Romish  Church 
in  worship  and  discipline,  as  well  as  in  doctrine,  are  contrary  to 
the  word  of  God,  and  not  conducive  to  edification ;  they  protested 
against  these  things,  but  they  could  effect  no  reformation  in 
that  communion.    There  was  but  one  thing  to  do — that  is,  to 
leave  the  Romish  Church,  which  they  did,  though  at  the  peril  of 
their  property,  liberty,  and  lives.    In  doing  this  they  were  not 
guilty  of  schism;  the  schism  lies  at  the  door  of  the  Romish 
Church,  which  exacted  of  them  un scriptural  terms  of  member- 
ship. 

So  with  regard  to  Dissenters  from  the  National  Established 
Church  of  England.  Many  who  were  born  and  bred  in  that 
CJiurch,  as  well  as  others  who  were  not,  were  led  to  believe 
that  the  union  of  Church  and  State — whether  according  to  the 
Papal  platform  as  set  forth  in  the  Syllabus,  by  which  the  State 
is  subjected  to  the  Church;  or  the  Erastian  platform,  by  which 
the  Church  is  subjected  to  the  State — is  contrary  to  God's  word, 


The  Bites  mid  Ceremonies  of  Churches. 


and  not  conducive  to  edification;  and  moreover,  that  there  are 
certain  ceremonies  and  disciplinary  rules,  as  well  as  doctrines, 
prescribed  by  that  politico-ecclesiastical  body,  which  they  con- 
sider repugnant  to  the  same.  What  was  their  duty  in  the  prem- 
ises? Most  obviously,  to  leave  that  communion.  For  doing 
this  the  Erastian  Anglicans  (as  in  the  other  case  the  Papists) 
charged  them  with  schism,  but  very  unjustly.  If  there  be  any 
schism  in  the  case,  it  lies  at  the  door  of  the  Established  Church,  * 
•  which  made  these  unscriptural  exactions. 

Those  who  are  set  for  the  defense  of  Article  XXXIY.  and 
Article  XXXYII.  in  the  Anglican  Confession  are  greatly  to  be 
pitied;  for  surely  there  is  no  authority  for  Erastianism  in  the 
New  Testament  or  in  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers. 

The  use  which  the  dominant  Church  made  of  those  passages 
in  the  Prophets  which  speak  of  kings  being  nursing  fathers  and 
their  queens  nursing  mothers  of  the  Church,  sucking  the  breasts 
of  kings,  and  the  like,  after  the  conversion  of  Constantine — and 
among  Protestants  since  the  Reformation — will  not  much  recom- 
mend Erastianism  to  the  candid  student  of  Church  history. 


BOOK  VIII. 

CHRISTIAN  ETHICS;  OR,  MORAL  THEOLOGY. 


I.  Of  the  Rulers  of  the  United  States  of  America* 
(Article  XXIII.) 
n.  Of  Christian  Men's  Goods.    (Article  XXIY.) 
III.  Of  a  Christian  Man's  Oath.    (Article  XXY. 


PART  I. 


ARTICLE  XXIIl. 

Of  the  Rulers  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  President^  the  Congress,  the  geneml  assemblies^  the  govern- 
ors, and  the  councils  of  state,  as  the  delegates  of  the  people,  are  the 
riders  of  the  United  States  of  America,  according  to  the  division  of 
poicer  made  to  them  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
Constitution  of  their  respective  States.  And  the  said  Stcdes  are  a 
sovereign  and  independent  nation,  and  ought  not  to  be  subject  to  anij 
foreign  jurisdiction.'^   

Introduction. 

This  article  seems  out  of  place  in  the  Confession.  Indeed,  it 
was  not  placed  there  by  Wesley.  He  very  properly  omitted  all 
the  politico-ecclesiastical  articles  in  abridging  the  Anglican  Con- 
fession for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America.  The 
Twenty-four  Articles,  as  he  prepared  them,  were  printed  by  his 
direction  in  London  in  1784,  before  the  Christmas  Conference  of 
that  year,  at  Avhich  the  Church  was  organized  and  the  liturgy 
and  articles  were  adopted.  He  inserted  in  the  liturgy  "A  Prayer 
for  the  Supreme  Eulers,"  in  which  they  are  styled  "  the  supreme 
rulers  of  these  United  States."  That  seemed  to  him  sufficient. 
But  the  patriotic  fathers  of  the  Church  thought  otherwise,  and 
so  they  framed  this  article,  and  numbered  it  XXIII. 

Some  changes  from  the  original  reading  were  required  when 
the  government  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation  became  the 
government  under  the  Constitution. 

*As  far  as  it  respects  civil  affairs,  we  Leheve  it  the  duty  of  Christians,  and  es- 
pecially all  Christian  ministers,  to  be  subject  to  the  supreme  authority  of  the 
country  where  they  may  reside,  and  to  use  all  laudable  means  to  enjoin  obedi- 
ence to  the  powers  that  be;  and,  tlierefore,  it  is  expected  that  all  our  preachers 
and  people,  who  may  be  under  any  foreign  government,  will  behave  themselves 
as  peaceable  and  orderly  subjects. 

32  Vol.  II.  (497) 


198 


Of  the  Rulers  of  the  United  States  of  America. 


In  1790  "  The  President"  was  inserted  before  "  the  Congress," 
and  in  1804  "the  Constitution  of  the  United  States"  was  substi- 
tuted for  "the  general  Act  of  Confederation;"  and  the  words 
"are  a  sovereign  and  independent  nation,  and"  were  inserted  in 
the  last  sentence. 

In  1820  the  General  Conference  appended  a  note  to  the  article, 
to  meet  the  special  case  of  the  Methodists  in  Canada  who  then 
belonged  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  against  whom 
unfounded  suspicions  had  been  created,  as  that  Church  was  con- 
sidered a  foreign  ecclesiastical  body.  In  1858  our  General  Con- 
ference substituted  "  any  foreign  government"  for  "the  British 
or  any  other  government." 

[A  few  words  of  general  introduction  to  this  Book  on  "  Chris- 
tian Ethics"  may  here  be  added.  Unlike  the  preceding  Books, 
it  does  not  attempt  completely  to  cover  the  field  defined  by  its 
title.  The  three  articles  included  in  it  evidently  do  not  exhaust 
the  topics  included  in  moral  theology;  nevertheless,  all  the  sub- 
jects contained  in  and  suggested  by  the  three  articles  fall  within 
these  general  limits,  and  the  title  prefixed  is  the  oiijy  one  at  once 
sufficiently  general  to  include,  and  sufficiently  definite  to  point 
out,  the  subject-matter.  This  brevity  is  the  more  pardonable 
for  two  reasons:  (1)  Ethics,  or  moral  philosophy,  is  universally 
recognized  as  a  distinct  branch  of  study  in  all  our  American  insti- 
tutions of  learning;  moreover,  as  taught  in  tliese  institutions,  it 
incorporates  the  elements  of  Christian  morals  and  is  pervaded 
and  dominated  by  essentially  Christian  ideas.  (2)  Moral  theol- 
ogy is  not  essential  to  the  completeness  and  integrity  of  a  sys- 
tem of  Christian  dogmatics.  The  scientific  treatment  of  dogma, 
or  doctrine,  is  independent  of  the  scientific  treatment  of  ethics,  or 
practice,  and  there  is  an  increasing  tendency  among  theologians 
to  divorce  these  two  departments  of  inquiry.  In  the  Eoman 
Catholic  system,  moral  theology  assumes  greater  importance 
because  Home  regards  morality  no  less  than  dogma  as  a  body  of 
positive  definitions  and  precepts  constructed  md  imposed  by 
the  authority  of  the  Church.  The  writer  has,  however,  made 
some  additions  where  Dr.  Summers's  treatment  seemed  excep- 
tionally brief,  and  discussions  of  the  morals  of  Christianity  are 
found  throughout  the  preceding  pages,  as  in  Book  Y.,  Part  II., 
Chap.  lY.,  on  the  "  Eternal  Obligation  of  the  Moral  Law."  Com- 
pare Introduction,  in  Yol.  L,  Chap.  I.,  §§  1,  4.] 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  AND  THE  STATE. 
§  1.  The  Article  Devoid  of  Party  Significance. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  observe  that  neither  the  article  itself 
nor  the  note  appended  has  any  political  bearing.  It  settles  no 
question  as  to  the  claims  of  Imperialists,  Royalists,  Oligarchists, 
Eepublicans,  or  Democrats,  to  say  nothing  of  minor  distinctions. 
It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  right  of  revolution,  nullification, 
secession,  or  consolidation. 

§  2.  Doctrine  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  article  merely  affirms  that  in  the  character  of  Christians, 
and  especially  as  Christian  ministers,  we  have  to  obey  Ihe  powers 
that  be — the  de  facto  government,  while  it  lasts— whether  the 
chief  ruler  be  a  Nero,  a  George  III.,  or  a  Washington.  This  is 
the  teaching  of  Christ  and  the  apostles.  Matt.  xxii.  15-22 :  "  Then 
went  the  Pharisees,  and  took  counsel  how  they  might  entangle 
him  in  his  talk.  ,^And  they  sent  out  unto  him  their  disciples  with 
the  Herodians,  saying.  Master,  we  know  that  thou  art  true,  and 
teachest  the  way  of  God  in  truth,  neither  carest  thou  for  any 
man:  for  thou  regardest  not  the  person  of  men.  Tell  us  there- 
fore, What  thinkest  thou?  Is  it  lawful  to  give  tribute  unto 
Caesar,  or  not?  But  Jesus  perceived  their  wickedness,  and  said, 
Why  tempt  ye  me,  ye  hypocrites?  Shew  me  the  tribute  money. 
And  they  brought  unto  him  a  penny.  And  he  saith  unto  them, 
Whose  is  this  image  and  superscription  ?  They  say  unto  him, 
Csesar's.  Then  saith  he  unto  them.  Render  therefore  unto  Caesar 
the  things  which  are  Caesar's;  "and  unto  God  the  things  that  are 
God's.  When  they  had  heard  these  words,  they  marveled,  and 
left  him,  and  went  their  way."  Luke  xii.  14f:  "And  he  said  unto 
him,  Man,  who  made  me  a  judge  or  a  divider  over  j'OU?  "  John 
xviii.  36,  37:  "  Jesus  answered.  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world: 
if  my  kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then  would  my  servants  fight, 
that  I  should  not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews;  but  now  is  my  king- 
dom not  from  hence.  Pilate  therefore  said  unto  him.  Art  thou 
a  king  then?    Jesus  answered,  Thou  sayest  that  I  am  a  king. 

(499) 


500 


Piulers  of  ilie  United  States  of  America. 


To  this  end  was  I  bom,  a^d  for  this  cause  came  I  into  the  world, 
that  I  should  bear  witness  unto  the  truth.  Every  one  that  is  of 
the  truth  heareth  my  voice."  Acts  xvi.  35-40;  xxv.  10-12:  "And 
v.hen  it  was  day,  the  magistrates  sent  the  Serjeants,  saying,  Let 
those  men  go.  And  the  keeper  of  the  prison  told  this  saying  to 
Paul,  The  magistrates  have  sent  to  let  you  go;  now  therefore 
depart,  and  go  in  peace.  But  Paul  said  unto  the.m,  They  have 
beaten  us  openly  uncondemned,  being  Romans,  and  have  cast 
us  into  prison;  and  now  do  the}^  thrust  us  out  privily?  my  ver- 
ily; but  let  them  come  themselves  and  fetch  us  out.  And  the 
Serjeants  told  these  words  unto  the  magistrates:  and  they  feared, 
when  they  heard  that  they  were  Pomans.  And  they  came  and 
besought  them,  and  brought  them  out,  and  desired  them  to  de- 
part out  of  the  city.  And  they  went  out  of  the  prison,  and  en- 
tered into  the  house  of  Lydia:  and  when  they  had  seen  the  breth- 
ren, they  comforted  them,  and  departed."  "Then  said  Paul, 
I  stand  at  Caesar's  judgment  seat,  where  I  ought  to  be  judged:  to 
the  Jews  have  I  done  no  wrong,  as  thou  very  well  knowest.  For 
if  I  be  an  offender,  or  liave  committed  any  thing  worthy  of  death, 
I  refuse  not  to  die :  but  if  there  be  none  of  these  things  whereof 
these  accuse  me,  no  man  may  deliver  me  unto  them.  I  appeal 
unto  Caesar.  Then  Festus,  when  he  had  conferred  with  the 
council,  answered,  Hast  thou  appealed  unto  Caesar?  unto  Caesar 
shalt  thou  go."  Pom.  xiii.  1-7:  "Let  every  soul  be  subject  unto 
the  higher  powers.  For  there  is  no  power  but  of  God:  the 
powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God.  Whosoever  therefore  re- 
sisteth  the  power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God;  and  they  that 
resist  shall  receive  to  themselves  damnation.  For  rulers  are  not 
a  terror  to  good  works,  but  to  the  evil.  AVilt  thou  then  not  be 
afraid  of  the  power?  do  that  whicli  is  good,  and  thou  shalt  have 
praise  of  the  same:  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God  to  thee  for 
good.  But  if  thou  do  that  which  is  evil,  be  afraid;  for  he  bear- 
eth  not  tlie  sword  in  vain;  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God,  a  re- 
venger to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil.  Wherefore 
ye  must  needs  be  subject,  not  only  for  wrath,  but  also  for  con- 
science' sake.  For,  for  this  cause  pay  ye  tribute  also:  for  they 
are  God's  ministers,  attending  continually  upon  this  very  thing. 
Pender  therefore  to  all  their  dues;  tribute  to  whom  tribute  is 
due;  custom  to  whom  custom;  fear  to  whom  fear;  honor  to 
whom  honor."    1  Tim.  ii.  1,  2;  vi.  1-5:  "I  exhort  therefore, 


The  Christian  and  the  State. 


501 


that,  first  of  all,  supplications,  prayers,  intercessions,  and  giving 
of  thanks,  be  made  for  all  men;  for  kings,  and  for  all  that  are 
in  authority;  that  we  may  lead  a  quiet  and  peaceable  life  in  all 
godliness  and  honesty."  "Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under 
the  yoke  count  their  own  masters  worthy  of  all  honor,  that 
the  name  of  God  and  his  doctrine  be  not  blasphemed.  And 
they  that  have  believing  masters,  let  them  not  despise  them, 
because  they  are  brethren;  but  rather  do  them  service,  because 
they  are  faithful  and  beloved,  partakers  of  the  benefit.  These 
things  teach  and  exhort.  If  any  man  teach  otherwise,  and  con- 
sent not  to  wholesome  words,  even  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  to  the  doctrine  which  is  according  to  godliness;  he 
is  proud,  knowing  nothing,  but  doting  about  questions  and  strifes 
of  words,  whereof  cometh  envy,  strife,  railings,  evil  surmisings, 
perverse  disputings  of  men  of  corrupt  minds,  and  destitute  of 
the  truth,  supposing  that  gain  is  godliness:  from  such  withdraw 
thyself."  Titus  iii.  1:  Put  them  in  mind  to  be  subject  to  prin- 
cipalities and  powers,  to  obey  magistrates,  to  be  ready  to  every 
good  work."  1  Pet.  ii.  13-17:  "Submit  yourselves  to  every  or- 
dinance of  man  for  the  Jjord's  sake:  whether  it  be  to  the  king, 
as  supreme;  or  unto  governors,  as  unto  them  that  are  sent  by 
him  for  the  punishment  of  evil  doers,  and  for  the  praise  of  them 
that  do  well.  For  so  is  the  will  of  God,  that  with  well  doing  ye 
may  put  to  silence  the  ignorance  of  foolish  men:  as  free,  and 
not  using  your  liberty  for  a  cloak  of  maliciousness,  but  as  the 
servants  of  God.  Honor  all  men.  Love  the  brotherhood.  Fear 
God.    Honor  the  king." 


CHAPTER  II. 

POLITICAL  ETHICS. 
§  1.  Dr.  Pope  on  Political  Ethics. 

[Divine  revelation  lias  from  the  beginning  been  bound  up  with  government, 
and  the  social  and  political  affairs  of  the  world.  Its  history  shows  the  sanctifica- 
tion  of  every  form  of  developing  rule  among  men;  from  the  primitive  lionseliold 
and  family,  its  simplest  and  typical  form,  to  tlie  most  violent  form  of  imperial 
despotism.  "\Ve  have  now  to  do  with  the  final  teaching  of  the  New  Testament, 
about  which  there  is  little  room  for  donbt.  Its  general  principles  are  very  plain, 
both  as  to  the  rulers  and  as  to  the  ruled. 

I.  The  institution  of  government  is  divine:  not  founded  on  any  compact  or 
agreement  among  men,  as  the  modern  figment  is.*  The  more  carefully  we  ex- 
amine the  basis  of  tribal  and  national  distinctions  among  men — in  other  M'ords, 
what  goes  to  constitute  a  distinct  people — the  more  clearly  shall  we  perceive  that 
it  is  conditioned  by  a  certain  relation  to  God  whose  worship  was  the  original  bond 
of  unity  to  every  race,  and  whose  representative  the  earthly  ruler  was.  Govern- 
ment was  made  for  man  and  man  was  also  made  for  it.  The  form  of  that  gov- 
ernment is  not  prescribed  rigidly  and  definitively:  certainly  not  in  the  Christian 
legislation.  Every  form  of  valid  authority  is  sanctified  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Tlie  New  Testament  introduces  a  universal  monarchy  in  the  spiritual  economy  of 
things;  and  only  in  a  very  subordinate  way  deals  wit^i  the  kingdom  of  this  world. 
But  the  foundations  of  civil  and  political  society  for  earth  were  laid  in  heaven: 
the  i)owers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God.  Human  magistrates  represent  the  Su- 
preme Judge:  being  in  the  state  his  deputies.  He  is  the  minister  of  God  to  thee 
for  good:  for  the  protection  and  peace  of  the  law-abiding.  He  is  the  minister  of 
God,  a  revenger  to  execute  Avrath:  fpr  the  administration  of  the  divine  justice  on 
transgressors.  These  principles  are  indisputable.  The  same  term  is  used  con- 
cerning the  representation  of  ecclesiastical  authority  in  the  Church  and  civil  au- 
thority in  the  world:  they  are  both  dtctKovot  and  leLTirvpyoLj  or  ministers. 

II.  Obedience  to  magistrates  and  the  government  of  the  land  is  made  part  of 
the  Christian  law:  expressly  included  in  his  ethics  by  our  Lord  on  the  broad 
ground  of  the  duty  to  "render  therefore  unto  Ctesar  the  things  that  are  C.iesar's," 
though  the  Ca?sar  of  that  day  held  the  land  in  bondage.  St.  Paul  recognized  in 
liis  own  person,  and  commands  all  men  to  recognize,  what  v.as  at  best  a  despotic 
and  cruel  authority. 

L  The  duty  of  submission  is,  first,  in  a  certain  sense,  passive.  ""Whosoever, 

*Man  is  by  nature  asocial  and  political  animal,  as  Aristotle  phrases  it,  and  thus  the 
Creator  has  gi-ounded  government  in  man's  constitution  and  in  the  nature  of  things. 
Moreover  all  civil  rule  is  ordained  of  God,  nor  did  govemment  as  such  originarte  in  vol- 
untary social  compact.  This  is  amere  theory  devoid  of  historical  foundation.  All  of  this, 
however,  is  consistent  Avith  that  other  truth  that  existing  pai'ticular  goveniments  derive 
their  just  powers  from  the  tacit  or  expi*ess  consent  of  the  governed. — T. 
(502)  '% 


Political  Ethics. 


503 


therefore,  resisteth  the  power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God ;  and  they  that  resist 
shall  receive  to  tliemselves  damnation"  [judgment,  condemnation].  This  for- 
bids, negatively,  personal  insurrection  and  resistance.  How  far  submission  is  to 
be  carried,  at  what  point  resistance  is  permitted — not  to  the  individual  as  such, 
but  to  a  people  —  is  a  question  which  our  present  ethics  do  not  contemplate. 
later  anna  lecjes  silent.  The  obligation  comes  in,  however,  before  the  arms  are 
taken  up.  No  individual  Christian  may  resist  witliout  betraying  his  trust,  and 
losing  the  meekness  of  his  wisdom.  When  the  question  is  "concerning  the  law 
of  his  God"  (Dan.  vi.  5),  the  servant  of  Jehovah  must  resist,  but  not  until  sub- 
mission has  had  its  perfect  work. 

2.  Positively,  obedience  to  the  government  requires  that  diligence  be  given  to 
uphold  the  honor  of  the  law  at  all  points,  and  that  for  conscience  sake.  Much  em- 
phasis is  laid  both  by  our  Lord  and  by  his  apostles  on  paying  tribute  to  whom 
tribute  is  due:  a  principle  which  involves  very  important  issues.  "For  this 
cause  pay  ye  tribute  also."  Let  it  be  observed  that  St.  Paul's  ethics  of  submis- 
sion to  government  follow,  and  are,  as  it  were,  incorporated  with,  his  sublimest  and 
most  comprehensive  doctrine  of  Christian  morality. 

3.  The  Bible  from  beginning  to  end  inculcates  and  honors  patriotusm.  It  has 
been  sometimes  said  that  neither  the  sentiment  of  love  to  country  nor  that  of  per- 
sonal friendship  finds  a  place  in  Christian  ethics.  It  is  true  that  the  supreme  de- 
votion to  a  kingdom  which  is  not  of  this  world  everywhere  has  the  pre-eminence; 
and  that  the  individual  sympathies  of  friendship  are  merged  in  brotherly  love. 
But  both  these  sentiments  are  really  inculcated  and  encouraged.  There  is  no 
profane  history  that  surpasses  or  equals  its  annals  in  examples  of  both,  and  Chris- 
tianity must  Iiave  the  benefit  of  the  old  religion  of  which  it  is  in  a  certain  sense 
a  continuation.*] 

§  2.  Dr.  Hodge  on  Obedience  to  Civil  Magistrates. 
[Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  iu  substantial  harmony  with  Dr.  Pope, 
but  from  a  cis- Atlantic  stand-point,  and  in  somewhat  closer  sym- 
pathy with  American  ideas  and  institutions,  treats  the  subject  as 
follows : 

Tiie  whole  theory  of  civil  government  and  the  duty  of  citizens  to  their  rulers 
are  comprehensively  stated  by  the  apostle  in  Bomans  xiii.  1-5.  It  is  there 
taught:  (1)  That  all  authority  is  of  God.  (2)  That  civil  magistrates  are  ordained 
of  God.  (3)  That  resistance  to  them  is  resistance  to  him;  they  are  ministers  ex- 
ercising his  authority  among  men.  (4)  That  obedience  to  them  must  be  rendered 
as  a  matter  of  conscience,  as  a  part  of  our  obedience  to  God. 

Froni  this  it  appears:  First,  that  civil  government  is  a  divine  ordinance.  It 
is  not  merely  an  optional  human  institution;  something  which  men  are  free  to 
have  or  not  to  have,  as  they  see  fit.  It  is  not  founded  on  any  social  compact;  it  is 
something  which  God  commands.  The  Bible,  however,  does  not  teach  that  there 
is  any  one  form  of  civil  government  which  is  always  and  everywhere  obligatory. 
The  form  of  government  is  determined  by  the  providence  of  God  and  the  will  of 
the  people.  It  changes  as  the  state  of  society  changes.  Much  less  is  it  implied 
in  the  proposition  that  government  is  a  divine  institution,  that  God  designates 


*  I'ope,  '*  Conipemliuni,"  etc.,  \o\.  III.,  pp.  251-253. 


Rulers  of  tlie  Vtiited  States  of  America. 


the  persons  who  are  to  exercise  the  various  functions  of  the  government;  or  llie 
mode  of  their  appointment;  or  the  extent  of  their  powers. 

Secondly,  it  is  included  in  the  apostle's  doctrine,  that  magistrates  derive  tiieir 
authority  from  God;  they  are  his  ministers;  they  represent  him.  In  a  certain 
sense  they  represent  the  people,  as  they  may  be  chosen  by  them  to  be  liie  depos- 
itaries of  this  divinely  delegated  authority;  but  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained 
by  God;  it  is  his  will  that  they  should  be,  and  that  they  should  be  clothed  with 
authority. 

Thirdly,  from  this  it  follows  that  obedience  to  magistrates  and  to  the  laws  of 
the  land,  is  a  religious  duty.  We  are  to  submit  to  "every  ordinance  of  man," 
for  the  Lord's  sake,  out  of  our  regard  to  him,  as  St.  Peter  expresses  it,  or  for 
"conscience'  sake,"  as  the  same  idea  is  expressed  by  St.  Paul.  We  are  bound  to 
obey  magistrates  not  merely  because  we  have  promised  to  do  so;  or  because  we 
have  a})pointed  them;  or  because  they  are  wise  or  good;  but  because  such  is  the 
will  of  God.  In  like  manner  the  laws  of  the  land  are  to  be  observed,  not  because 
we  approve  of  them,  but  because  God  has  enjoined  such  obedience.  This  is  a 
matter  of  great  importance;  it  is  tlie  only  stable  foundation  of  civil  government 
and  of  social  order.  There  is  a  great  difference  between  obedience  to  man  and 
obedience  to  God;  between  lying  to  man  and  lying  to  God;  and  between  resist- 
ance to  man  and  resistance  to  God.  This  principle  runs  through  the  Bible,  which 
teaches  that  all  authority  is  of  God,  and  therefore  all  obedience  to  those  in  au- 
thority is  part  of  our  obedience  to  God.  This  applies  not  only  to  the  cases  of  cit- 
izens and  rulers,  but  also  to  parents  and  children,  husbands  and  wives,  and  even 
masters  and  slaves.  In  all  these  relations  we  are  to  act  not  as  the 'servants  of 
men,  but  as  the  servants  of  God.  This  gives  to  authority,  by  whomsoever  exercised, 
a  divine  sanction;  it  gives  it  power  over  the  conscience;  and  it  elevates  even 
menial  service  into  an  element  of  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God.  Xo 
man  can  have  a  servile  spirit  who  serves  God  in  rendering  obedience  to  men. 
!None  but  a  law-abiding  people  can  be  free  or  prosperous;  and  no  people  can  be 
permanently  law-abiding  who  do  not  truly  believe  that  "the  powers  that  be  are 
ordained  of  God."  "  Whosoever,  therefore,  resisteth  the  power  (them  in  author- 
ity), resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God;  and  they  that  resist  shall  receive  to  them- 
selves damnation  (/cpZ^a)."    That  is,  God  will  punish  them. 

Fourthly^  another  principle  included  in  the  apostle's  doctrine  is  that  obedience 
is  due  to  every  de  facto  government,  whatever  its  origin  or  character.  His  direc- 
tions were  written  under  the  reign  of  Nero,  and  enjoined  obedience  to  him.  The 
early  Christians  were  not  called  to  examine  the  credentials  of  their  actual  rulers 
every  time  the  prjetorian  guard  chose  to  depose  one  emperor  and  install  another. 
The  people  of  England  were  not  free  from  their  obligation  to  William  and  Mary 
when  once  established  on  the  throne,  because  they  might  think  that  Jtfmes  II. 
was  entitled  to  the  crown.  AVe  are  to  obey  "the  powers  that  be."  They  are  in 
authority  by  the  will  of  God,  which  is  revealed  by  facts  as  clearly  as  by  words. 
It  is  by  him  that  "kings  reign  and  princes  decree  justice."  "He  raiseth  up  one 
and  putteth  d{)wn  another." 

Fifthly,  the  Scriptures  clearly  teach  that  no  human  authority  is  intended  to  be 
unlimited.  Such  limitation  may  not  be  expressed,  but  it  is  always  implied.  The 
command  "Thou  shalt  not  kill"  is  unlimited  in  form,  yet  the  Scriptures  recog- 
nize that  homicide  may  in  some  cases  be  not  only  justifiable  but  obligatory.  The 


The  Christian  and  the  State. 


505 


principles  which  limit  the  authority  of  civil  government  and  of  its  agents  are  sim- 
ple and  obvious.  The  first  is  that  governments  and  magistrates  have  authority 
only  within  their  legitimate  spheres.  As  civil  government  is  instituted  for  the 
protection  of  life  and  property,  for  the  preservation  of  order,  for  the  punishment 
of  evil-doers,  and  for  the  praise  of  those  who  do  well,  it  has  only  to  do  with  the 
conduct  or  external  acts  of  men.  It  cannot  concern  itself  with  their  opinions, 
whether  scientific,  philosophical,  or  religious.  An  act  of  Parliament  or  of  Con- 
gress, that  Englishmen  or  Americans  should  be  materialists  or  idealists,  would  be 
an  absurdity  and  a  nullity.  The  magistrate  cannot  enter  our  families  and  as- 
sume parental  authority,  or  our  Churches  and  teach  as  a  minister.  A  justice  of 
the  peace  cannot  assume  the  prerogatives  of  a  governor  or  of  a  president  of  the 
United  States.  Out  of  his  legitimate  sphere  a  magistrate  ceases  to  be  a  magistrate. 
A  second  limitation  is  no  less  plain.  No  human  authority  can  make  it  obligatory 
on  a  man  to  disobey  God.  If  all  power  is  from  God,  it  cannot  be  legitimate  when 
used  against  God.  This  is  self-evident.  The  apostles,  when  forbidden  to  preach 
the  gospel,  refused  to  obey.  When  Daniel  refused  to  bow  down  to  the  image  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  had  made,  when  the  early  Christians  refused  to  worship  idols, 
and  when  the  Protestant  martyrs  refused  to  profess  the  errors  of  the  Romish 
Church,  they  all  commended  themselves  to  God,  and  secured  the  reverence  of  all 
good  men.  On  this  point  there  can  be  no  dispute.  It  is  important  that  this 
principle  should  be  not  only  recognized,  but  also  publicly  avowed.  The  sanctity 
of  law  and  tlie  stability  of  human  governments  depend  on  tiie  sanction  of  God. 
Unless  they  repose  on  him,  they  rest  on  nothing.  They  have  his  sanction  only 
when  they  act  according  to  his  will;  that  is,  in  accordance  with  the  design  of  their 
appointment  and  in  harmony  with  the  moral  law. 

Sixthly,  anotlier  general  principle  is  that  the  question  when  the  civil  gov- 
ernment may  be  and  ought  to  be  disobeyed,  is  one  which  every  man  must  decide 
for  himself.  It  is  a  matter  of  private  judgment.  Every  man  must  answer  for 
himself  to  God,  and  therefore  every  man  nnist  judge  for  himself  whether  a 
given  act  is  sinful  or  not.  Daniel  judged  for  himself.  So  did  Shadrach,  Me- 
shach,  and  ^bednego.    So  did  the  apostles,  and  so  did  the  martyrs. 

An  unconstitutional  law  or  commandment  is  a  nullity;  no  man  sins  in  disre- 
gardirtg  it.  He  disobeys,  however,  at  his  peril.  If  his  judgment  is  right,  he  is 
free.  If  he  be  wrong,  in  the  view  of  the  proper  tribunal,  he  must  suffer  the  pen- 
alty. There  is  an  obvious  distinction  to  be  made  between  disobedience  and  re- 
sistance. A  man  is  bound  to  disobey  a  law,  or  a  command,  which  requires  him 
to  sin,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  he  is  at  liberty  to  resist  its  execution.  The 
apostles  refused  to  obey  the  Jewish  authorities:  but  they  submitted  to  the  penalty 
inflicted.  So  the  Christian  martyrs  disobeyed  the  laws  requiring  tliem  to  Avorship 
idols,  but  they  made  no  resistance  to  the  execution  of  the  law.  The  Quakers  dis- 
obey the  laws  requiring  military  service,  but  quietly  submit  to  the  penalty.  This 
is  obviously  right.  The  right  of  resistance  is  in  the  community.  It  is  the  right 
of  revolution,  which  God  sanctions,  and  which  good  men  in  past  ages  have  ex- 
ercised to  the  salvation  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  When  a  government  fails 
to  answer  the  purpose  for  which  God  ordained  it,  the  people  have  a  right  to 
change  it.  A  father,  if  he  shamefully  abuses  his  powers,  may  rightly  be  deprived 
of  authority  over  his  children.*] 


♦"Systematic  Theology,"  \o\.  III.,  pp.  357-300. 


PART  II. 
ARTICLE  XXIV. 

Of  Christian  Men's  Goods. 

The  riches  and  goods  of  Christians  are  not  common,  as  touching 
the  right,  title,  and  'possession  of  the  same,  as  some  do  falsely  boast. 
Notwithstanding,  every  man  ought,  of  such  things  as  he  possesseth, 
liberally  to  give  alms  to  the  poor  according  to  his  ability. 


Introduction. 

This  article  is  the  same  as  Article  XXXVIII.  in  the  Anglican 
Confession,  except  that  the  title  of  the  latter  is  this:  *'0f  Chris- 
tian Men's  Goods  AVhich  Are  Not  Common,"  which  limits  the 
article  to  a  repudiation  of  the  community  of  goods;  and  it  has 
"certain  Anabaptists,"  where  we  have  the  more  general  word, 
"some." 
(506) 


CHAPTER  I. 


COMMUNISM. 
^  1.  Historical. 

This  change  v»a3  obviously  proper  because  communism  lias 
been  inculcated  in  every  age  from  a  remote  antiquity,  and  it  is 
proper  to  have  a  standing  protest  against  it.  It  was  a  leading 
element  in  the  ancient  Buddhistic  and  Pythagorean  systems. 
Plato  laid  great  stress  upon  it  in  his  work  on  the  Ideal  State, 
extending  it  to  the  community  of  women  as  well  as  of  goods. 
His  leading  views  were  advocated  by  the  Xeo-PIatonic  philoso- 
pher, Plotinus.  •  The  Therapeutic  and  Essenes,  among  the  Jews, 
were  also  communists.  A  communistic  sentiment  was  developed 
among  the  early  Christians,  which  crystallized  into  the  monastic 
system.  It  was  advocated  and  practiced  by  various  heretical 
bodies,  as  the  Apostolici  mentioned  by  Augustin,  who  renounced 
marriage  as  well  as  property;  and  the  Eustathians,  who  were 
condemned  by  the  Council  of  Gangra.  In  after  times  arose 
the  Humiliates,  the  Beghards  (  male  ),  the  Beguins  (female  ),  the 
Brethren  and  Sisters  of  the  Free  Spirit,  and  the  Adamites, 
who  carried  their  principles  as  far  as  Plato,  and  who  were  sup- 
pressed by  the  Hussite  leader  Ziska.  The  Agrarianism,  which 
gave  an  impulse  to  the  Peasants'  War  at  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, developed  into  the  communism  of  "  The  Heavenly  Proph- 
ets," founded  by  Nicholas  Storch  in  1521,  and  more  fidly  in  the 
revolting  doctrines  and  j^ractices  of  Miinzerand  the  Anabaptists; 
the  Libertines  of  Geneva,  opposed  by  Calvin;  and  the  Familists 
of  England  and  Holland  about  1545.  In  a  milder  form  the  com- 
munistic element  was  embodied  in  the  society  of  the  Moravians 
at  Herrnhut,  and  in  some  communities  of  Auvergne,  and  the 
Shakers  of  the  United  States.  Eoger  Bacon  in  his  "  New  Atlan- 
tis," Thomas  More  in  his  "  Utopia,"  Harrington  in  his  "  Oceana," 
favored  communism,  and  the  Buchanites  of  Scotland,  in  the  eight- 
eenth century,  reduced  the  theory  to  practice;  but  their  society 
did  not  last  more  than  half  a  centuiy.  They  were  followed  by 
the  Owenites  in  England,  Scotland,  and  the  United  States,  under 

(507) 


508 


Chr'istkin  Men's  Goods. 


Eobert  Owen  and  Abram  Combe;  but  they  soon  came  to  naught. 
The  Chartists  followed  in  their  wake. 

The  French  Kevolution  gave  birth  to  communistic  ideas  which 
produced  fearful  results.  The  Utopianism  of  the  Eevolutionists 
was  based  on  atheism.  Then  came  St.  Simonism,  Fourierism, 
Lamennaisism,  Proudhonism,  Icarianism,  and  other  socialistic 
systems  in  France,  and  similar  societies  in  Switzerland,  Ger- 
many, Belgium,  Italy,  America,  and  other  countries.  The  last 
and  least  appears  to  be  the  Eugby  folly,  founded  by  Thomas 
Hughes,  of  old  Eugby  fame.  Before  the  exotic  took  root  in 
Tennessee,  it  withered  away.  Some  of  these  communistic  bod- 
ies advocated  celibacy,  as  the  Shakers  and  German  Seventh-day 
Baptists,  and  others;  or  the  community  of  women,  as  the  Oneida 
Communists.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  communism  has  been 
denounced  as  a  heresy  by  the  Church  in  every  age. 

§2.  The  Scriptural  Doctrine. 

Burnet  shrew^dly  remarks : 

There  is  no  great  difficulty  in  this  article,  as  tliere  is  no  danger  to  be  appre- 
hended that  the  opinion  condemned  by  it  is  likely  to  spread.  Those  may  be  for 
it  who  find  it  for  them.  The  poor  may  lay  claim  to  it,  but  few  of  the  rich  will 
ever  go  into  it.  The  whole  charge  that  is  given  in  the  Scripture  for  charity  and 
alms-giving;  all  the  rules  that  are  given  to  the  rfc/t,  and  to  masien,  to  whom  their 
servants  were  then  properties  and  slaves,  do  clearly  demonstrate  that  the  gos[)el 
was  not  designed  to  introduce  a  community  of  goods. 

The  scriptural  support  sought  for  communism  rests  on  a  false 
exegesis  of  two  or  three  passages. 

Our  Lord  said  to  the  rich  young  ruler,  "  If  thou  wilt  be  per- 
fect, go  and  sell  that  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou 
shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven:  and  come  and  follow  me."  (Matt, 
xix.  21.)  So  he  said  to  his  disciples,  "Sell  that  ye  have,  and 
give  alms;  provide  yourselves  bags  which  wax  not  old,  a  treasure 
in  the  heavens  that  faileth  not."  ( Luke  xii.  33.)  Those  'and  sim- 
ilar instructions  do  not  countenance  voluntary  poverty  or  com- 
munity of  goods,  wdiich  was  never  enjoined,  but  only  practiced 
in  a  specific  case  for  specific  ends.  The  rich  ruler  could  not  fol- 
low Christ  in  his  itinerancy,  and  preach  the  gospel,  while  he  was 
fettered  by  his  houses  and  lands,  upon  which  his  affections  were 
unduly  set;  hence  the  requisition  in  his  case.  So  Peter  and  the 
other  apostles  left  all  and  followed  Christ;  they  gave  up  their 
fishing-boats  and  nets,  their  toll-booths,  and  other  positions 


Communism. 


509 


and  occupations,  as  they  were  to  devote  themselves  exclusively 
to  the  work  of  the  ministry  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  The 
requisition  made  of  them  was  not  in  the  interest  of  poverty  or 
of  communism;  much  less  was  it  intended  to  operate  as  a  gen- 
eral confiscation  of  j)roperty  among  all  who  embraced  the  gos- 
pel. Indeed,  Peter  retained  the  proprietorship  of  his  house  at 
Capernaum,  and  he  and  others  apparently  of  their  fishing-boats 
{(f,  John  xxi.);  John  had  a  home  at  Jerusalem,  and  so  had 
Mark,  or  his  mother  had;  and  others  (ministers  as  well  as  lay- 
men) had  houses  and  lands,  as  well  as  other  property,  which 
they  were  not  required  to  confiscate  to  the  Church. 

But  the  great  passage  relied  on  by  the  communists  is  Acts  ii. 
44,  45:  "And  all  that  believed  were  together,  and  had  all  things 
common;  and  sold  their  possessions  and  goods,  and  j^arted  them 
to  all  men,  as  every  man  had  need."  This  was  one  of  the  re- 
markable phenomena  presented  at  the  great  Christian  Pentecost. 
Thousands  of  believers  were  at  Jerusalem  during  the  feast, 
and  for  some  time  after.  (Acts  iv.  4,  34-37.)  As  they  were  os- 
tracised by  the  unbelieving  Jews,  some  provision  had  to  be  made 
for  their  sustenance:  this  was  done  by  the  voluntary  offerings  of 
those  who  had  means.  No  law  was  necessary:  they  acted  under 
the  impulse  of  their  newborn  iove.  Some  of  them  went  so  far 
as  to  sell  their  landed  property  to  procure  means  to  protract 
this  Pentecostal  meeting.  As  Jesus  and  the  twelve  apostles 
had  but  one  purse,  all  sharing  together  from  the  common 
stock  (though  some  of  them  retained  the  ownership  of  property 
which  there  was  no  occasion  to  sell),  so  in  this  case,  whatever  was 
needed  by  the  community  of  believers  was  supplied  by  those 
who  had  it.  There  was  no  compulsion,  and  there  was  no  with- 
holding, except  in  one  painful  instance.  (Acts  v.  1-11.)  It  was 
a  temporary  expedient,  not  a  precedent  for  future  times.  Joses 
Barnabas  is  specified,  among  others,  as  one  who  sold  his  land, 
and  brought  the  money  and  laid  it  at  the  apostles'  feet.  But 
Ananias  and  Sapphira,  having  sold  a  possession,  kept  back 
part  of  the  price,  and  only  brought  a  part  to  lay  at  the  apostles' 
feet,  stating  at  the  same  time  that  they  had  given  the  whole 
amount.  But  Peter  said:  "Ananias,  why  hath  Satan  filled 
thine  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  keep  back  part  of  the 
price  of  the  land?  AVhile  it  remained,  was  it  not  thine  own? 
and  after  it  was  sold,  was  it  not  in  thine  own  power?  "    He  was 


510 


Christian  Me}Cs  Goods, 


uuder  no  obligation  to  sell  the  land  for  benevolent  purposes  un- 
til he  promised  so  to  do;  then  he  was.  (Eccles.  v.  4,  5.)  Or, 
without  making  any  such  promise,  he  was  at  liberty  to  sell  it,  and 
retain  all  the  money  it  brought;  but  if  he  told  the  apostles  that 
he  sold  the  land  for  the  benefit  of  the  Church,  which  was  to 
have  the  entire  proceeds^  then  to  withhold  a  part  of  the  price, 
and  to  say  that  he  had  given  the  whole,  was  hypocrisy,  decep- 
tion, and  sacrilege. 

Thus,  instead  of  supporting  the  communists  in  their  ultra 
fanatical  views,  this  pentecostal  transaction  utterly  refutes  them. 


CHAPTER  II. 

CHRISTIAN  ALMSGIVING. 

The  second  part  of  the  article,  which  is  in  keeping  with  the  first, 
and  with  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture,  is  a  complete  refutation  of 
communism. 

§  1.  Scripture  Teachings. 

The  Scriptures  exhort  to  industry  and  frugality,  in  order  to 
liberality.  According  to  Wesley's  gnome:  Make  all  you  can, 
honestly;  save  all  you  can,  frugally;  give  all  you  can,  liberally. 

There  would  be  small  inducement  for  men  to  be  industrious 
and  frugal  if  the  indolent  and  prodigal  were  to  share  the  property 
which  the  industrious  and  frugal  make  and  save.  Christianity  is 
not  so  self-contradictory,  so  suicidal  as  that.  Hear  the  apostle: 
"Let  him  that  stole  steal  no  more:  but  rather  let  him  labor, 
working  with  his  hands  the  thing  which  is  good,  that  he  may  have 
to  give  to  him  that  needeth."  (Eph.  iv.  28.)  "  Work  with  your 
own  hands  .  .  .  that  ye  may  walk  honestly  toward  them  that  are 
without,  and  that  ye  may  have  lack  of  nothing."  (1  Thess.  iv. 
11, 12.)  "  For  even  when  we  were  with  you,  this  we  commanded 
you,  that  if  any  would  not  work,  neither  should  he  eat.  For  we 
hear  that  there  are  some  wliicli  walk  among  you  disorderly,  work- 
ing not  at  all,  but  are  busybodies.  Now  them  that  are  such,  we 
command  and  exhort  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  with  quiet- 
ness they  work,  and  eat  their  own  bread."    (2  Thess.  iii.  10-12. ) 

The  early  Christians  had  a  community  of  poor  widows  who 
were  supported  by  the  charity  of  theXhurch.  Some  mean  per- 
sons, who  were  able  to  support  their  widowed  mothers  and  grand- 
mothers, devolved  the  burden  upon  the  Church.  This,  as  it  Avell 
might,  excited  the  indignation  of  the  apostle,  and  he  affirmed 
that  such  niggardly  wretches  denied  the  faith  and  were  worse 
than  the  heathen,  who  considered  it  a  filial  duty  to  take  care  of 
their  helpless  parents  and  other  kindred.  He  insisted  that  the 
members  of  the  Church  who  had  widowed  relatives  should  relieve 
them,  and  let  not  the  Church  be  charged,  so  that  it  might  be  able 
to  "  relieve  them  that  were  widows  indeed  " — that  is,  who  had  no 
children  or  other  relatives  to  take  care  of  them.  ( 1  Tim.  v.  3-16.) 

(511) 


512 


Christian  Moi's  Goods, 


The  Scriptures  abound  with  injunctions  to  liberality,  hospi- 
tality, and  kindness  to  the  poor,  which  would  be  altogether  im- 
pertinent on  the  principle  of  communism.  AVe  will  refer  to  a  few 
of  the  passages  which  relate  to  this  subject:  Deut.  xv.  1-18;  xvi. 
10;  Ps.  xli.  1;  cxii.  9;  Pro  v.  xi.  24,  25;  xxii.  9;  xxviii.  27;  Eccles.  xi. 
1-6;  Isa.  Iviii.  7-10;  Matt.  vi.  1-4;  xxv.  31-46;  Luke  iii.  11;  xiv. 
12-14;  xxi.  1-4;  Acts  xx.  33-35;  Bom.  xii.  13;  xv.  25-28;  1  Cor. 
xvi.  1,  2;  2  Cor.  viii.-x.;  Gal.  vi.  6-10;  Phil.  iv.  10-18;  1  Tim.  vi.; 
Heb.  xiii.  16;  James  ii.  14-16;  1  John  iii.  17;  3  John  5-8. 
Those  who  were  distinguished  for  their  liberality  are  highly 
commended;  as  Jesus  Christ,  2  Cor.  viii.  9;  Zaccheus,  Luke  xix. 
8;  Cornelius,  Acts  x.  2;  the  widow,  Mark  xii.  42-44;  Dorcas, 
Acts  ix.  36 ;  the  Churches  of  Macedonia,  2  Cor.  viii.  1-5. 

§  2.  General  Principles  of  Christian  Conduct. 

The  Scriptures  nowhere  lay  down  any  definite  rules  as  to  the 
amount  of  time,  labor,  and  care,  which  we  are  to  expend  in  the 
accumulation  of  property,  or  of  frugality  and  economy  in  hus- 
banding our  means;  or  in  what  proportion  we  are  to  dispense 
them  in  the  exercise  of  our  liberality.  AVe  are  free  moral  agents, 
and  the  dispensation  under  which  we  live  deals  very  little  in  pre- 
cise rules  of  conduct. 

We  must  not  injure  our  health,  or  our  neighbor  in  his  repu- 
tation, property,  or  person,  or  "rob  God"  of  the  time  and 
strength  necessary  for  the  higher  duties  of  religion,  in  order  to 
acquire  riches.  "We  must  let  our  conversation  be  without  covet- 
ousness,  and  we  must  be  moderate  in  our  desires  for  the  accumu- 
lation of  property. 

We  must  not  be  niggardly  and  ascetic  in  our  habits,  close  and 
hard  in  our  dealings  with  others,  in  order  to  save  money,  under 
the  guise  of  frugality.  AVe  must  be  liberal  to  ourselves  as  well 
as  to  others. 

We  must  not  inconsiderately  squander  our  means  upon  all 
who  come  in  our  way,  whether  they  deserve  it  or  not;  nor  impru- 
dently decrease  our  capital,  so  tliat  we  shall  not  have  the  means 
of  accumulating  more.  This  is  a  kind  of  liberality  which  bor- 
ders on  prodigality.  "A  good  man  slioweth  favor  and  lendetli: 
he  will  guide  his  afPairs  with  discretion."    (Ps.  cxii.  5.) 

In  none  of  these  points  is  there  any  danger  of  our  going  astray 
if  we  have  a  renewed  nature,  an  enlightened,  rectified  conscience, 


Cli ristian  Almsgiving. 


513 


a  sanctified  will,  the  spirit  of  consecration,  and  humble  depend- 
ence on  the  providence  and  grace  of  God  for  direction.  . 

§  3.  No  Christian  Tithe  Law. 

Some  people  wish  there  was  something  like  a  tithe  law  to  reg- 
ulate our  contributions  to  objects  of  piety  and  charity;  some  go 
so  far  as  to  say  that  there  is.  But  there  is  none,  and  none  is 
needed;  it  would  be  an  impertinence  under  oar  dispensation.  In- 
deed, the  tithe  system  under  the  Jewish  dispensation  was  merely 
designed  to  secure  a  certain  support  for  the  theocratical  insti- 
tutions of  the  Jewish  economy.  Personal  and  occasional  bene- 
factions were  left  then,  as  now,  to  the  "  discretion  "  of  every  one. 

When  Abram  gave  tithes  to  Melcliizedek,  it  was  only  of  the 
spoils  which  he  had  gained  in  "  the  slaughter  of  the  kings,"  as  a 
thank-offering  to  the  most  high  God.  of  whom  Melcliizedek  was 
priest.    (Gen.  xiv.;  Heb.  vii.) 

When  Jacob  vowed  to  give  the  tenth  to  the  Lord  of  all  that 
He  might  give  him  while  in  Padan-Aram,  in  case  he  should  be 
brought  back  to  his  own  country  in  peace  ( Gen.  xxviii.  21,  22), 
he  was  complying  with  no  law,  and  establishing  no  precedent. 
We  never  hear  that  he  on  any  other  occasion,  or  any  of  the  pat- 
riarchs at  any  time,  made  such  vows  or  presented  such  offerings. 

A  tenth  might  be  too  much  for  some,  far  too  little  for  others, 
and  entirely  too  commercial  for  any.  The  rule  given  to  the  Gala- 
tians  and  Corinthians,  to  lay  up  in  store  (not  a  tenth,  but  as  God 
had  prospered  them)  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  was  for  a 
specific  purpose,  a  contribution  for  the  poor  saints  in  Jerusalem, 
for  whom  Paul  was  making  collections.  He  wanted  them  to  have 
it  ready  by  the  time  he  should  give  them  a  call,  that  he  might 
"senjl  their  liberality  (or  gift)  unto  Jerusalem."  (1  Cor.  xvi. 
1-4.)   Paul  never  dreamed  of  tithes.    Doddridge  hits  the  point: 

To  thee,  as  to  onr  covenant,  God, 

We'll  our  whole  selves  resign; 
And  count  that  not  one-tenth  alone, 

But  all  we  have,  is  thine. 

All  belongs  to  God,  and  we  ourselves  are  his.  As  David  said, 
with  a  most  princely  display  of  liberality:  "But  who  am  I,  and 
what  is  my  people.,  that  we  should  be  able  to  offer  so  willingly 
after  this  sort?  for  all  things  come  of  thee,  and  of  thine  own 
have  we  given  thee."  ( 1  Chron.  xxix.  14.) 
33  Vol.  II. 


PART  III. 
ARTICLE  XXV. 

Of  a  Christian  Man's  Oath. 

As  we  confess  ihat  rain  and  rash  sirearinf)  is  forbidden  Christian 
men  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  James  his  apostle,  so  ire  judge 
that  the  Christian  religion  doth  not  prohibit  but  that  a  man  mag  strear 
when  the  magistrate  requirethj  in  a  cause  of  faith  and  charifg,  so  it 
be  done  according  to  the  prophet's  teaching,  in  justice,  judgment,  and 
truth.   

Introduction. 

This  is  identical  with  the  Thirty-ninth  Article  of  the  Anglican 
Confession,  except  that  the  word  "  the  "  is  inserted  before  "  Chris- 
tian religion. 
(514) 


CHAPTER  I. 

DEFINITION  AND  HISTORY. 

§1.  Definition. 

There  are  two  words  for  oath  in  Hebrew — alah  and  shehuah — 
the  former  comprising  an  imprecation  of  woe  upon  the  swearer 
if  what  he  utters  is  false.  This  is  implied  in  every  solemn  oath. 
The  LXX.  renders  both  words  by  o7>zoc,  and  the  Yulgate  by  jura- 
mentmn,  or  jusjitrandum.  Cicero  defines  an  oath,  an  affirmation 
vouched  for  by  an  appeal  to  a  divinity.  To  these  two  elements — 
(1)  an  affirmation,  (2)  an  appeal  to  God — is  added  (3)  a  judicial 
occasion,  when  it  is  what  is  called  a  solemn  oath,  such  as  that  noted 
in  the  article.  Our  authorities  define  an  oath  thas:  solemn 
affirmation  or  declaration,  made  with  an  appeal  to  God  for  the 
truth  of  what  is  affirmed."  It  recognizes  the  omniscience,  jus- 
tice, power,  and  providence  of  God.  Its  solemnity  is  so  great 
that  ^mong  all  people  it  has  been  considered  of  the  last  impor- 
tance for  the  ascertainment  of  truth  and  the  securement  of  fidel- 
ity. It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  affairs  of  the  world  could  be 
carried  on  without  it.  Hence  perjurers  are  stigmatized  as  the 
most  detestable  and  dangerous  characters  in  society,  and  are  held 
obnoxious  to  most  severe  penalties.  But  this  article  has  no  more 
than  an  incidental  bearing  upon  the  taking  of  false  oaths  or  dis- 
regarding the  obligation  of  oaths  that  have  been  taken. 

§  2.  Historical. 

The  article  is  supposed  to  have  been  leveled,  like  the  preced- 
ing, against  the  Anabaptists.  This  is  likely;  bat  then  it  goes 
beyond  them. 

The  Quakers  and  some  others  in  our  day  think  it  unlawful  to 
swear  before  a  magistrate.  This,  indeed,  seems  strange,  unac- 
countably strange,  when  such  names  as  Forster,  Gurney,  Bar- 
clay, and  Penn,  are  found  in  their  list  of  worthies.  But  then 
the  AValdenses,  that  "most  ancient  stock  of  religion,"  as  Milton 
calls  them,  abstained  from  all  oaths.  Among  the  errors  laid  to 
the  charge  of  tiie  Pelagians,  and  for  which  they  were  censured 

(515) 


516 


A  Christian  Man's  Oath. 


by  Augustin,  was  their  opinion  of  the  unlawfulness  of  oaths  of 
every  kind. 

Indeed,  some  of  the  orthodox  Fathers  expressed  themselves 
unguardedly  on  this  subject.  Chrysostom,  in  his  Homilies  to  the 
people  of  Antioch,  declaims  more  against  swearing  than  perhaps 
any  other  man.  "He  and  some  others,"  as  Bingham  says,  "in 
their  sharp  invectives  against  common  swearing,  seem  sometimes 
to  deny  the  lawfulness  of  all  oaths  to  Christians  in  any  case 
whatever." 

So  Tertullian  says:  "I  say  nothing  of  perjury,  since  it  is  un- 
lawful even  to  swear."  Yet  he  elsewhere  says  that  Christians, 
though  they  did  not  swear  by  the  emperor's  genius — which  was 
nothing  but  a  devil — yet  they  did  swear  by  the  emperor's  safety, 
which  Bingham  explains  to  be  not  swearing  by  the  creature,  but 
only  naming  it  Avith  relation  to  God  by  whom  they  swore — as 
Joseph,  Gen.  xlii.  15.  Perhajjs  such  a  custom  is  more  honored 
in  the  breach  than  in  the  observance. 

But  oaths  before  magistrates,  councils,  etc.,  were  not  onl^  al- 
lowed by  the  Fathers,  but  were  also  required  by  them,  and  were  as 
common  among  them  as  among  us.  (See  Bingham,  Antiquities 
xvi.  7.) 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  LAWFULNESS  OF  OATHS. 

How  any  one  who  respects  the  teachings  of  revelation  can  fail 
to  see  the  lawfulness  of  solemn  oaths,  and,  indeed,  their  impor- 
tance and  obligation,  we  cannot  imagine. 

§  1.  Scripture  Teachings. 
The  article  alludes  to  Jer.  iv.  2:  "And  thou  shalt  swear.  The 
Lord  liveth,  in  truth,  in  judgment,  and  in  righteousness;"  and  the 
prophet  adds,  "and  the  nations  shall  bless  themselves  in  him,  and 
in  him  sJiall  they  glory."  Tliis  shows  that  solemn  swearing  is  an 
act  of  homage  to  the  Divine  Sovereign,  an  expression  of  the 
highest  reverence  and  devotion.  He.  may  have  had  his  eye  on 
Deut.  X.  20:  "Thou  halt  fear  the  Lord  thy  God;  him  shalt  thou 
serve,  and  to  him  shalt  thou  cleave,  and  swear  by  his  name." 
And  why  not?  God  himself  is  represented  as  swearing:  "  By 
myself  have  I  sworn,  saith  the  Lord."  (Gen.  xxii.  16.)  To  this 
the  apostle  refers  in  Heb.  vi.  13-18:  "  For  when  God  made 
promise  to  Abraham,  because  he  could  swear  by  no  greater,  he 
sware  by  himself,  saying,  Surely,  blessing  I  bless  thee,  and 
multiplying,  I  will  multiply  thee.  And  so,  after  he  had  patient- 
ly endured,  he  obtained  the  promise."  And  expatiating  on  it, 
the  apostle  refers  to  the  common  sentiments  of  mankind:  "For 
men  verily  swear  by  the  greater:  and  an  oath  for  confirmation  is  to 
them  an  end  of  all  strife.  "Wherein  God,  willing  more  abundantly 
to  show  unto  the  heirs  of  promise  the  immutability  of  his  counsel, 
confirmed  it  by  an  oath:  that  by  two  immutable  things,  in  which 
it  was  impossible  for  God  to  lie,  we  might  have  a  strong  consola- 
tion, who  have  fled  for  refuge  to  lay  hold  upon  the  hope  set  be- 
fore us." 

Christ  bore  testimony  under  oath,  and  thereby  proved  its  law- 
fulness and  great  importance.  He  recognized  the  right  of  the 
high-priest,  in  his  ofiicial  capacity,  to  adjure  him  by  the  living 
God  to  testify  as  to  his  claims.  This  is  the  most  solemn  form  of 
an  oath.    (Matt.  xxvi.  63,  64.)   Thus  Jehovah  himself  swears: 

(517) 


518 


A  Christian  Man's  Oath. 


"As  truly  as  I  live,  all  the  earth  shall  be  filled  with  the  glory  of 
the  Lord."    (Num.  xiv.  21.) 

lu  Key.  X.  5, 6,  John  says:  "And  the  angel  which  I  saw  stand  upon 
the  sea  and  upon  the  earth  lifted  up  his  hand  to  lieaven,  and 
sware  by  him  that  liveth  forever  and  ever,  who  created  heaven, 
and  the  things  that  therein  are,  and  the  earth  and  things  that 
therein  are,  and  the  sea,  and  the  things  which  are  therein,  that 
there  should  be  time  no  longer."  The  amplification  of  the  predi- 
cates of  God,  whose  name  for  the  greater  effect  is  suppressed, 
gives  great  weight  and  solemnity  to  the  angel's  oath. 

The  Bible  abounds  with  instances  of  swearing,  or  solemn  af- 
firmation, by  patriarchs,  prophets,  apostles,  and  others.  The  ear- 
liest instance  recorded  is  in  Gen.  xxi.  22-31;  cf.  xxvi.  26-33;  xxiv. 
3,  8,  9;  xxxi.  44,  53;  1.  25;  Ex.  xxii.  11;  Num.  v.  19;  xxx.  2;  Josh, 
ii.  12;  1  Sam.  xx.  16,  17;  1  Kings  viii.*31;  2  Kings  xi.  4;  2  Chron. 
XV.  14,  15;  Neh.  x.  29;  Ps.  xv.  4;  cxix.  106;  cxxxii.  1,  2;  Eccles. 
viii.  2;  Dan.  xii.  7,  and  other  places. 

The  waitings  of  Paul  abound  with  solemn  obtestations,  if  not 
properly  oaths — c.  r/.,  Eom.  ix.  1;  1  C^r.  xv.  31;  2  Cor.  i.  18,  23; 
xi.  10,  31;  xii.  19;  Gal.  i.  20;  Phil.  i.  8;  1  Thess.  ii.  5;  v.  27. 

§2.  Our  Saviour's  Command. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing,  it  cannot  be  reasonably  supposed 
that  "  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  James  his  apostle  "  forbade  the 
taking  of  solemn  oaths. 

Christ  says,  "  Swear  not  at  all ;  but  let  your  communication 
be,  Yea,  yea;  Nay,  nay;  for  whatsoever  is  more  than  these  Com- 
eth of  evil."  The  entire  passage  shows  that  our  Lord  had  no 
reference  to  solemn  or  judicial  swearing,  which  was  only  by  the 
name  of  God.  He  interdicted  all  swearing  by  any  but  God;  and 
the  interdict  includes  all  substitution  of  the  name  of  God  in  an 
oath  by  something  resembling  it. 

The  Jews  were  very  loose  in  their  casuistry  concerning  oaths, 
like  the  Jesuits  of  our  times.  They  interpreted  the  language, 
*'Thou  shall  not  forswear  thyself,  but  shall  perform  unto  the 
Lord  thine  oaths"  (found  substantially  in  Ex.  xx.  7;  Lev.  xix.  12; 
Num.  xxx.  2;  Deut.  xxiii.  23),  as  if  only  those  oaths  Avere  bind- 
ing which  were  sworn  by  God.  The  third  commandment,  "  Thou 
shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain,  for  the 
Lord  Avill  not  hold  him  guiltless  which  taketh  his  name  in  vain," 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Oaths. 


519 


is  perhaps  a  proliibition  of  perjury,  "  vanity"  in  the  Hebrew  fre- 
quently meaning  falsehood.  To  take,  or  to  lift  up,  the  name  of 
(jrod  means  to  swear  by  his  name,  and  the  word  rendered  "  in 
vain"  probably  means  "for  a  falsehood."  It  does  not  seem  to 
mean  ''vain  "  as  the  word  is  used  in  our  article,  though  the  Sep- 
tuagint  renders,  as  we  do,  l-\  iiaTaiw  in  vain,  or  for  a  trivial  pur- 
pose. The  interlarding  of  common  conversation  with  oaths  of 
any  kind  is  what  Christ  and  James  forbid. 

A  rash  oath  is  one  that  is  inconsiderately  taken,  whether  in  or 
out  of  a  court  of  justice.  A  vain  oath  is  one  that  is  taken  on 
trivial  grounds.  Both  are  alike  profane;  both  are  alike  prohib- 
ited. They  are  altogether  different  from  those  solemn  oaths 
taken  by  patriarchs,  prophets,  apostles,  angels,  Christ,  and  God, 
as  already  noticed;  very  different  from  the  oaths  required  by 
magistrates  in  a  cause  of  faith  and  charity:  these  are  solemn  ap- 
peals to  God  for  the  confirmation  of  the  truth  and  the  defense  of 
innocence. 


THE  END. 


4 


A  SELECT  GLOSSARY 

OF 

Theology  AND  Philosophy; 

INCLUDING 

BRIEF  BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICES 

OF 

EMINENT  THEOLOGIANS  AND  PHILOSOPHERS. 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 


The  aim  of  this  glossary  is  purely  practical.  Xo  other  consideration  than  that 
of  usefuhiess  has  guided  in  the  admission  or  exclusion  of  titles.  It  was  at  first 
designed  merely  to  explain  the  technical  terms  of  theology  and  philosophy  oc- 
curring in  Summers's  Systematic  Theology,  and  this  primary  purpose  lias  been  kept 
in  view  throughout.  Every  beginner  in  these  higher  disciplines  feels  the  need 
of  such  explanations,  and  for  him  this  gh)ssary  is  made.  But,  as  the  work  pro- 
gressed with  this  practical  scope,  it  was  found  difficult  to  confine  the  treatment  to 
verbal  explanations  and  to  exclude  matters  equally  important  to  the  student.  Be- 
ginners whose  minds  are  expanding  feel  the  impulse  to  wider  reading  and  sy.s- 
tematic  study;  but  oftentimes  liaving  no  man  to  teach  them,  they  know  not  what 
to  read  or  liow  to  study.  By  a  few  literary  references,  appended  to  some  of  the 
more  important  articles,  it  is  designed  to  direct  the  student  to  the  best  sources  for 
following  out  the  several  lines  of  inquiry,  so  tliat  he  may  satisfy  his  awakened  de- 
sire for  knowledge.  These  references  have  been  confined  almost  exclusively  to 
easily  accessible  books.  Another  object  has  been  to  make  the  names  of  the  great 
authorities  in  theology  and  philosophy  something  more  than  algebraic  symbols 
by  giving  some  account  of  the  lives  of  these  eminent  thinkers.  "With  this  view 
alone  have  the  biographical  notices  been  inserted. 

The  Encyclopedia  Britannica  (ninth  edition),  McClintock  and  Strong's  Cyclope- 
dia of  Biblical,  Theological,  and  Ecclesiastical  Literature,  "Watson's  Biblical  and  Theo- 
logical Dictionary  (Summers's  edition),  VXem'm^^sVocabidary  of  Philosophy,  as  revised 
by  Professor  Calderwood,  and  several  other  standard  books  of  reference,  have 
been  freely  drawn  upon.  But  recourse  has  also  been  liad  to  most  of  the  works 
mentioned  in  the  literary  references.  To  save  space,  the  frequent  references  to 
Summers's  Systemaiic  Theology  are  made  by  noting  simply  tlie  volume  and  page. 
Webster  and  Worcester  have  generally  been  accepted  as  sufficient  authority  for 
the  etymologies.  J.  J.  T. 

2 


GLOSSARY. 


ABELARD  (1079-1U2),'  mediaeval  theo- 
logian and  philosopliev,  studied  philosophy, 
first  under  Koscellin,  the  great  nominalist 
(sec  Nominalism),  an  I  afterward  under 
William  of  Champeaux,  wh;)  taught  extreme 
realism  (which  see).  Ab^jlard  steered  a 
middle  course,  and  has  been  called  a  con- 
ceptualidt  (see  Conceptualism').  IIo  studied 
divinit}-  under  Anselm,  and,  as  previously 
with  William,  though  at  lirst  a  favorite  pu- 
])il,  became  the  rival  and  antagonist  of  liis 
master  In  theology  his  method  was  free 
inquiry  (as  indicated  by  his  motto,  Intcllirjo 
■ul  credam,  "  I  know  that  1  may  believe"), 
resulting  in  decided  heretical  tendencies, 
particularly  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
(See  tlie  various  Church  and  Doctrine  His- 
tories.) 

ABIOGENESIS  (Grk.  a  privative,  ^I'os, 
life,  and  7«Vecris,  origin),  spontaneous  gener- 
ation; the  production  of  the  living  from  tlie 
jiot-living;  the  doctrine  that  organisms 
originated  by  evolution  from  inorganic  mat- 
ter. It  is  opposed  to  Biogenesis,  tlic  doc- 
trine that  living  bodies,  animal  or  veg.'table, 
are  descended  from  pre-existeut  living  bod- 
ies. 

ABSOLUTE  (;Lat.  ahsolutum,  ab  and 
solvere,,  to  loose  from).  In  philosophy  nad 
theology  "The  Absolute"  means  the  Self- 
existent,  Self-sufficient  Being,  independent, 
uncaused,  and  the  cause  of  all  that  is— the 
First  Cause.  The  term  is  of  twofold  sig- 
nification: (1)  Ahsolutum  means  Avhat  is 
freed  or  loosed;  in  which  sense  the  absjlutc 
Avill  be  what  is  aloof  from  relation,  compar- 
ison, limitation,  dependence,  etc.  In  this 
meaning  the  Absolute  is  not  opposed  to  the 
Infinite.  (2)  Ahsolutum  means  fijiishkl, 
perfected,  completed.  In  this  meaning  the 
Absolute  is  directly  contradictory  of  the 
Infinite.  In  this  sense  it  is  exclusively  em- 
ployed by  Sir  W.  Hamilton  (see  Metaphys- 
ics, and  also  Discussiont,  p.  U,  note;  of. 
Mansel,  Limits  of  Religious  Thought,  Eng- 
lish ed.  p.  45,  American  ed.  of  1850,  p.  75). 
The  i)lain  and  etymological  meaning  of  the 
term  is  freed  from  or  loosed,  and  hence  it 
means  freed  from  restriction  or  con^lition. 
In  this  sense  it  is  evident  that  the  Infinite 
aiust  be  the  Absolute,  for  that  which  is  not 


limited  does  not  afford  the  possibility  of  re- 
striction. 

ABSOL.UTI0N  (Lat.  absoluiio,  the  act 
of  loosing  from),  in  the  llomish  Church  the 
priest's  remission  of  sins  to  one  who  makes 
formal  confession  of  the  same.  So  far  as 
recognized  in  Protestant  Churches,  the  act 
is  regarded  as  declaratory  only. 

ACCEPTILATION  il.at' accrjUilatio}, 
a  Avord  employed  in  the  theology  of  redemp- 
tion to  denote  God's  acceptance  of  an  atone- 
ment by  Christ  not  really  equal  to  that  in 
place  of  AVhich  it  is  received,  but  equivalent^ 
not  because  of  its  intrinsic  value,  but  be- 
cause of  God's  determination  to  so  account 
and  receive  it.  The  term  is  borrowed  from 
Roman  commercial  law,  and  is  tlefined  in 
.lustinian's  Pandects,  '*an  acquittance  from 
obligation,  by  word  of  mouth,  of  a  debtor  by 
a  creditor,"  and  in  his  Institutes,  ''an  im- 
aginary payment."  In  mediajval  theology 
the  word  was  first  used  and  the  doctrine 
developed  by  .John  DunaScotus  in  his  con- 
troversy with  Thomas  Aquinas.  Ilis  thesis 
was  that  "■ever}'  created  oblation  or  ofler- 
ing  is  Avorth  Avhat  God  is  pleased  to  accept 
it  for,  and  no  more."  For  its  place  in  gov- 
ernmental theories  of  a*onemeiit,  see  the 
Aviitings  of  Grotius,  Episcopius,  and  Lim- 
borch.  (I.  246-218.  See  also  Miley,  Atone- 
ment, pp.,  203-207.) 

ACOL.YTHIST  (Grk.  aKoXovdoi,  fol- 
loAVing,  attending),  an  inferior  minister  in 
the  Romish  Church  Avhose  duties  include 
the  lighting  of  candles,  etc.    (II.  330.) 

ACOSMIST  (Grk.  o  priv,,  and  Koa/ao?, 
Avorldj,  one  Avho  theoretically  denies  the 
existence  of  the  universe  as  distiirct  from 
the  Absolute  Being.  "Spinoza  did  not  deny 
the  existence  of  God;  he  denied  the  exist- 
ence of  the  AA'oiid;  he  Avas  consequently  an 
Acosmist,  and  not  an  atheist."  'LcAves, 
Biog.  Hist,  of  Phil.,  p.  1.)  The  idealism  of 
Berkeley  has  also  been  described  as  acos- 
mism,  but  erroneously. 

ADONAI,  one  of  the  HebreAV  names  of 
God.  This  word  in  the  plural  number  sig- 
nifies my  Lords.  The  modern  Jcavs,  Avho, 
either  out  of  respect  or  superstition,  do  not 
pronounce  the  name  of  Jehovali.  read  Ado- 
nal  in  the  room  of  it,  as  often  as  they  meet 

3 


4 


Glossnry. 


■Willi  the  unnio  Jehovah  in  the  Hebrew 
text.  r>iit  the  ancient  Jews  were  not  so 
scnipulous.   (I.  122.) 

AESTHETICS  (Grk.  aI<r0T)(ris.knowledge 
thi-ough  feeling),  primarily  feeling  as  dc- 
Henrlent  on  physical  peneibility,  perception 
by  the  senses,  applied  by  riato  also  to  vis- 
ion of  an  intellectual  order.  (1)  Commonly, 
the  science  of  the  beautiful  in  nature  or  art, 
or  the  philr>sophy  of  the  fine  urt8.  (2)  In  the 
philosopliyof  Kant  it  is  kept  to  its  primary 
meaning,  as  concerned  with  knowledge  ob- 
tained through  the  sensory.  (See  Burke, 
The  Sublime  and  Jieautiftd;  Alison,  0?i 
Taste;  Lord  Jeffrey,  art.  "Beauty,"  Ency. 
Bril.^  Sth  cd.;  Bain,  Emotions  and  Will; 
Cousin,  TruCs  BeautifuU  and  Good;  Spen- 
cer, Principles  of  Psychologij^  i  i .  627 ;  Sully, 
Ontlinrs  of  Psychology^  p.  531,  and  art. 
'•.Esthetics,"'  Ency,  Brit.,,  0th  ed.;  M'Vi- 
car,  The  Philosophy  of  the  Beautiful.) 

.aiTIOIiOGY  (Grk.  aina,  cause;  Aoyo?, 
doctrine),  the  department  of  science  or  met- 
Bphysics  which  develops  and  expounds  the 
]>hdosophy  of  causes,  materiaU  formal,  tcl- 
ic,  ov  final,  and  efficient,  or  essential,  but 
particularly  the  latter.  (I.  oG,  62,  foot-note.) 
.  AGAP-ffl  (Grk.  ayi-rrri,  good-will,  broth- 
erly love;,  love-feasts,  which  Christians 
were  accustomed  to  hold  before  participa- 
tion in  the  Lord's-supper  to  expi-ess  and  en- 
courage mutual  love.  The  poorer  Chris- 
tians mingled  with  the  wealthier,  and  all 
classes  partook  in  common  of  food  provided 
by  the  well  to  do.  (See  Judo  12;  2  Pet.  ii. 
13;  1  Cor.  xi.  17;  Acts  ii.  42,  46:  xxt  7.) 

AGATHOLOGICAL  (Grk.  ayaOds, 
good;  Aoyos,  doctrine),  a  term  descriptive 
of  that  argument  for  the  existence  of  God, 
derived  from  the  benevolent  enils  mani- 
fested in  the  contrivances  and  adaptations 
of  nature.    (I.  66.) 

AGENDA  (Lat.  things  to  bo  done),  a 
term  nsed  to  include  the  moral  duties  and 
divine  .service  enjoined  by  Christianity. 
These,  together  with  the  Crcdenda,  or 
things  to  bo  believed,  and  the  Pctenda,  or 
things  to  be  prayed  for,  comprise  the  whole 
of  religion,  which  is  summarized  in  the 
three  virtues  of  Faith,  Hope,  and  Love,  oft- 
en represented  by  tho  Apostles'  Creed,  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  Ten  Command- 
ments.  (L49.)  , 

AGNOSTICISM  (Grk.  a  privative,  and 
fvwa-i.^,  knon  ledffC),  ft  philosophical  theory, 
based  on  the  relativity  of  human  knowl- 
edge, which  maintains  that  the  Absolute 
Being,  as  tho  Unconditioned,  cannot  be  in 
any  pciise  known;  or,  as  Herbert  Spencer 
States  It—"  that  the  power  which  the  Uni- 


verse manifests  to  iis  is  iitterly  inscruta»- 
ble"  {First  Principles,  p.  46).  The  term  is 
sometimes  employed,  in  a  wider  sense,  to 
describe  a  theory  which  denies  tho  exist- 
ence of  the  Absolute  as  unknown.  But 
this  use  of  the  term  is  inappropriate,  since 
we  cannot  argue  from  ignorance  to  non- 
existence. Hamilton,  while  denying  that 
the  Infinite  Being  can  by  \is  be  known, 
maintained  that  the  existence  must  by  ns 
be  believed  (Discussioyis,  p.  15;  Letter  to 
Calderwood,  Metaph.,  ii.,  app„  p.  530).  So 
Mansel  (Limits  of  Religious  Thought  and 
Letters^  Lectures,  and  Hevieu's,  pp.  157- 
1S9).  J.  S.  Mill,  while  declining  assent  to 
belief  in  an  Infinite  Being,  specially  in- 
sisted on  the  relativity  of  knowledge  in- 
volving the  impossibility  of  knowledge  of 
the  Absolute  {Examination  of  Hamilton, 
pp.  72-120).  Herbert  Spencer,  pointing  to 
the  reconciliation  of  religion  and  science, 
opens  tho  First  Principles  With  special 
treatment  of  the  Unknowable  (pp.  1-123). 

ALBEUTUS  MAGNUS,  Albert  the 
Great,  so-called  on  account  of  his  vast  eru- 
dition, was  born,  most  probably,  in  1193; 
and  died  in  12S0.  lie  Avas  deemed  the  great- 
est theologian,  philosopher,  and  math- 
ematician of  his  age,  and  was  the  teacher 
of  Thomas  Aquinas,  whose  orthodoxy  he 
defended.  His  works  were  published  in 
twenty-one  volumes  folio,  by  the  Domin- 
ican Peter  Jammy,  in^Ool.  His  principal 
theological  works  are  a  commentary  (three 
volumes)  on  tho  Books  of  the  Sentences  of 
Peter  Lombard,  the  "Master  of  the  Sen- 
tenced," and  his  Summa  7'heologice  (two 
volumes).  (See  the  Church  and  Doctrine 
Histories. ■> 

ALEXANDER  HALES  (c^ate  of  birth 
Unknown;  died,  1245),  Doctor  Irrefraga- 
bilis,  teacher  of  Bonaventura,  but  not  of 
Thomas  Aquinas  and  Duns  Scotus,  as  fre- 
quently asserted.  His  greatest  work  was 
his  Summa  Theologice  (Nuremberg,  l\Ztl, 
and  Venice,  1576),  undertaken  by  order  of 
Innocent  IV.,  and  approved  by  Alexander 
IV.,  after  it  had  been  submitted  to  seventy 
of  the  most  learned  theologians  of  tho  times 
to  test  its  fitness  as  the  system  of  instruc- 
tion for  all  the  schools  in  Christendom. 

ALPHA,  the  first  letter  of  the  Greek 
alphabet,  Omega  being  the  last  letter. 
Hence  Alpha  and  Omega  is  a  title  which 
Christ  appropriates  to  himself  (Rev.  i.  8; 
xxi.  C;  xxii.  13),  as  signifying  the  begin- 
ning and  the  end,  the  first  and  the  last, 
and  thus  properly  denoting  his  perfection 
and  eternity. 

AliTBUisM  (Lat.  aWer,  another),  the 


Glossary. 


5 


theoiy  -svliicli  makes  a  regard  to  the  hap- 
piness of  others  the  basis  of  moral  distinc- 
tions, and  constitutes  a  phase  of  the  Util- 
itarian or  Greatest  Happiness  theory, 
standing  in  contrast  to  Egoism,  which  was 
the  earlier  phase  of  the  doctrine.  Ego- 
ism makes  personal  happiness  the  end  of 
life;  Altruism  insists  that  "we  must  find 
our  owu  happiness  in  that  of  others.  In 
contrast  not  only  with  the  Egoism  of 
ITobbes,  but  Avith  the  more  benevolent 
scheme  of  Benlhain,  both  Comte  and  Mill 
held  "that  the  more  aliruisiic  any  man's 
sentiments  and  habits  of  action  can  be 
made,  the  greater  will  be  the  happiness 
enjoyed  by  himself  as  well  as  by  others'' 
(Sidgwick's  Outlines  of  the  History  of 
Ethics^  p.  2"). 

AMBHOSE  (340-397),  Bishop  of  Milan, 
in  early  life  an  advocate  and  public  olliccr, 
but  called  (374)  to  the  episcopate  in  Milan, 
in  times  of  great  disturbance,  by  the  unite<l 
voice  of  Arians  and  orthodox.  At  the  time 
of  his  election  he  was  only  a  catechumen, 
and  was  consecrated  Bishop  on  the  eighth 
day  after  his  baptism.  In  890  he  excom- 
municated the  Emperor  Theodosius  for  the 
massacre  at  Thessalonica,  and  absolved 
him  only  after  a  public  humiliation.  He 
Avas  the  father  of  "hymnology"  in  the 
Western  Church.  Ten  of  the  many  hymns 
ascribed  to  him  arc  usually  admitted  to  be 
genuine. 

AMIS SIBIL.it Y.  See  Tnamissibilitij . 

ANABAPTISTS  (Grk.  aud,  again,  and 
/BaTTTicTTjj?,  a  Baptist),  a  name  given  to  those 
Christians  Avlio  maintain  that  baptism 
ought  always  to  be  performed  by  immer- 
sion; that  it  ouglit  not  to  be  administered 
to  children  before  the  age  of  discretion; 
and  that  at  this  age  it  ought  to  be  re-ad- 
minislered  to  those  who  have  been  baptized 
in  their  infancy.  The  Anabaptists  of  Ger- 
many brought  the  name  into  great  odium 
by  their  turbulent  conduct;  but  by  the 
people  of  this  persuasion  generally  the 
conduct  of  these  fanatics  Avas  at  all  times 
condemned.  In  England  they  form  a  most 
lespectable,  though  not  a  very  numerous 
body,  Avhile  in  America  Baptists  are  only 
less  numerous  than  the  Methodists. 

ANALOGY  (Grk.  avaXoyCcL,  proportion). 
Analogy  proceeds,  in  general,  upon  the 
princiiile  that  if  two  individuals  resemble 
each  other  in  some  or  many  respects,  they 
])r<)bably  resemble  in  other  or  all  respects. 
Jt  is  a  case  of  analo'gical  reasoning  Avhen 
Avc  argue  that  because  Mars  possesses  an 
atniosi)here,  clouds,  seas  distinguishable 
from  the  land,  polar  regions  covered  Avith 


snow,  etc.,  the  planet  is  probably  inhab- 
ited. Bishop  Butler,  in  his  famous  Avork, 
argues  that  if  the  Scriptures  and  the  world 
exhibit  the  same  characteristics  and  diffi- 
culties, they  probably  proceeded  from  the 
same  author. 

ANNIHILATIONISTS  (Lat.  anyiihi- 
lare,  to  reduce  to  nothing),  or  Destructiou- 
ists,  those  Avho  hold  that  the  Avicked  Avill  not 
be  kept  in  eternal  misery,  but  Avill  suffer  a 
total  extinction  of  being.    (I.  381-384.) 

ANSELM  (1033-1109)  succeeded  Lan- 
franc,  both  as  Prior  of  Bee  (1063)  and  as 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury (1093) .  He  is  often 
regarded  as  the  first  of  the  scholastics:  Xe- 
ander  calls  him  the  Augustin  of  his  age.  His 
faith  Avas  ahvays  sincere  and  undoubting, 
as  indicated  by  his  principle.  Credo  ut  intel- 
ligam  (I  believe  that  I  may  knoAv).  In  phil- 
osophy he  was  a  Realist,  and  sought  to 
demonstrate  the  being  and  attributes  of  God 
by  the  ontological  argximent  (I.  53),  of  Avhich 
he  was  the  inventor,  this  argument  consti- 
tuting the  substance  of  the  Monologion  and 
Proslogion .  He  Avas  also.the  first  to  attempt 
a  scientific  account  of  the  doctrine  of  Atone- 
ment Avith  Avhich  his  greatest  AAork  Cur 
Deus  Homo  is  occupied.  His  theory  involves 
three  positions:  (1)  that  satisfaction  is  nec- 
essary on  account  of  God's  honor  and  jus- 
tice; (2)  that  such  satisfaction  can  be  ren- 
dered only  by  a  being  possessing  the  unique 
personality  of  the  God-man;  and  (3)  that 
such  satisfaction  is  rendered  by  the  volun- 
tary death  of  this  jDcrson  of  infinite  dignity 
and  valut.  Anselm's  theological  importance 
is  thus  seen  to  rest  upon  tAvo  great  pillars: 
(1)  he  first  formulated  the  ontological  argu- 
ment: and  (2)  he  first  essayed  the  construc- 
tion of  a  scientific  doctrine  of  atonement. 
(I.  53,  248,  249.) 

ANTHROPOLOGY  (Grk.  dvOpajTro^  and 
\6yos,  the  science  of  man)  among  natural- 
ists means  the  natural  history  of  the  human 
species.  Anthropology  determines:  the  re- 
lations of  man  to  the  other  mammalia;  eth- 
nology, the  relations  of  the  different  varie- 
ties of  mankind  to  each  other.  In  Germa- 
ny the  term  includes  all  the  sciences  Avhich 
in  any  point  of  view  relate  to  man— soul 
and  body,  individual  and  species,  facts  of 
history  and  phenomena  of  consciousness, 
rules  of  morality  as  Avell  as  material  inter- 
ests. In  theology  ^H^/iroi)o?Of/»/  includes: 
(1)  man's  estate  as  he  came  from  the  hands 
of  his  Creator,  particularly  his  moral  and 
spiritual  condition  and  relations;  (2)  the 
history  of  the  Fall,  especially  a  full  and 
critical  interpretation  of  the  narrative  in 
Genesis;  and  (3)  the  conseiiueuces  of  the 


6 


Giossanj. 


Fall,  involving  the  seminal  anil  federal 
headship  of  Ailani,  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin,  etc.  The  estate  into  which  man  is 
brought  by  the  Redemption  in  C  hrist,  i.  e., 
through  the  relation  of  man  to  the  Second 
Adam,  is  treated  of  iu  Soleriology,  ivhich 
see.  (11.  19-212.  See  also  Dr.  G.  C  .  Knapp. 
Chruslian  Thcvlogi/^  bk.  ii.,  pt.  i..  art.  ix., 
!»]).  239-317;  Marteusen,  Christian  Dog- 
matics, pp.  135-213;  Van  Oosterzee,  Dog- 
matics, vol.  1.,  pp.  3.55-388,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  3S9- 
441;  Hoilgc,  Si/stematic  Theology,  vol.  ii., 
pp.  3-309;  A.  A.  Hodge,  Outlines  of  Theol- 
ogy, chaps,  xv.-xxi.,  pp.  288-366;  Pope,  vol. 
i.,  pp.  430-436,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  1-SG;  Raymond, 
vol.  ii..  ]>p.  7-172.) 

ANTHROP  (Grk.  ik^pwiro?.  man)  and 
ANTHROPOID  (Grk,  ii'0p<os-o?.  man,  and 
el5os,  form,  resemblance)  contrasted  terms 
Oiten  emi)loyed  in  recent  science  to  dis-tin- 
gnish  between  man  and  those  animals 
Avhich  most  i-esemblc  man  in  physical 
structure  or  other  characteristics,  as  the 
anthi-opoid  ai)es."    (I.  60,  01.) 

ANTHROPOMORPHISM  (Grk.  av- 
epw.uo?.  man;  fjiop^itj.  form..  In  its  grosser 
form,  the  attributing  of  a  human  bmly  orof 
any  of  its  organs  to  the  Deity;  iu  its  liner 
form  tlie  representation  of  divine  attributes 
as  if  they  wei-c  only  human  attributes  en- 
largc<!.  The  ascribing  of  bodily  members 
to  Deity  is  wittily  exposed  by  Cicero  (De 
Xat.  Deor.,  lib.  i.  cap.  27).  Spinoza,  hold- 
ing that  all  things  are  in  God,  maintained 
that  Go<l  is  an  extended  being  {Ethics,  pt. 
li.  pro].,  ii.  . 

ANTHROPOPATHY  (Grk.  a,'5p<o:ro?. 
man,  and  Tra^o?,  suflering),  the  ascription  of 
human  passions  to  God.    (I.  80-82.) 

ANTILEGOMENA  (Grk.  ivri,  against, 
and  Aeyctf,  to  &i)eak;,  or  Antilegomcnai 
Graphui,  tlio>c  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  for  a  time  were  not  unani- 
mously received  as  canonical.    (I.  423.) 

ANTINOMIANS  {i.vni,  against,  and 
i-ojio?,  law  I  are  those  who  maintain  that  the 
law  IS  of  no  use  or  obligation  under  the 
gospel  flispcnsation,  or  who  hold  doctrines 
that  clearly  sui>ersede  the  necessity  of  gootl 
works  and  a  virtuous  life.  The  Antinomi- 
ans  took  their  origin  from  John  Agricola, 
alxmt  the  year  1538.  Some  of  their  later 
teachers  expressly  maintained  that,  as  the 
elect  cannot  fall  from  grace  nor  forfeit  tlic 
<livinc  favor,  the  wicked  actions  they  com- 
mit are  not  i-eally  sinful.  These  dangemus 
jsentiments,  and  others  of  a  similar  bearing, 
have  lieen  fully  answere*!  by  many  writers: 
but  by  none  more  ably  than  by  the  Kev. 


John  Fletcher,  in  his  Checks  to  Anlinomi- 
anism."    (I.  552.) 

ANTIPEDOBAPTISTS  (Grk.  kvrL^ 
against;  TraZ?.  child;  and  ^an-Ti'ietv,  to  bap- 
tize), a  denomination  given  to  those  who  ob- 
ject to  the-baptism  of  infants. 

ANTITHEISM.   See  ^^;jcjs»i. 

A  PARTE  ANTE,  and  A  PARTE 
POST.  Those  two  Latin  exi>ressious,  from 
the  scholastic  philosophy,  refer  to  eternity. 
Man  can  only  conceive  of  eternity  as  con- 
sisting of  two  parts:  the  one  without  limits 
in  the  past,  a  parte  ante;  and  the  other 
without  limits  in  tlu;  future,  a  parte  post — 
both  predicable  of  the  Divine  existence. 

APOCALYPSE,  a  revelation;  from 
aTTOKoXvrrTciv ,  to  rcvcal.  The  name  .some- 
times given  to  the  last  book  of  the.  New 
Testament,  the  revelation  of  St.  John  the 
Divine,  from  its  Greek  title,  which  has 
the  same  meaning. 

APOCRYPHA  (Grk.  a-6  and  icpvVreir.  to 
hide),  the  books  so  called  "because  they 
were  Avont  to  be  read  not  openly  and  in 
common,  but  as  it  Aveve  in  secret  and 
apart."  iBible  of  1539,  Pre/ace  to  Apocry- 
pha.)  B(K»ks  appended  to  the  sacred  writ- 
ings of  doubtful  authority:  there  is  no  au- 
thority, internal  or  external,  for  admitting 
these  books  into  the  sacred  canon.  They 
were  not  received  as  ])ortions  of  the  Old 
Testament  by  the  Jews,  to  Avhom  were 
committed  the  oracles  of  God;"  they  are 
not  cited  or  alludcil  to  in  any  part  of  the 
New  Testament;  and  they  ait;  expressly 
rejected  by  Athanasius  and  Jerome  in  the 
fourth  century,  though  these  two  fathers 
speak  of  them  with  rcsi)cct.    (I.  4Jt9-50^1.) 

APOLL.INARIANS.  or  Apollinarists, 
a  sect  who  derive  their  jnincipal  name  from 
Apollinaris,  Bishop  of  T.aodicea,  in  the 
fourth  century.  Apollinaris  strenijously 
defeniled  the  divinity  of  C  hrist  against  the 
Arians;  but,  by  indulging  too  freely  in  phil- 
osophical ilistinctions  and  subtleties,  he  de- 
nied in  some  measure  his  humanity.  He 
maintained  that  the  body  Avhich  Christ  as- 
sumed was  endowed  with  a  sensitive,  b:it 
not  a  rational,  soul;  and  that  the  clivine 
nature  performed  the  functions  of  reason, 
and  supplied  the  place  of  the  intellectual 
principle  in  man.  Hence  it  seemed  to  fol- 
low that  the  divine  nature  in  Christ  Avas 
blended  with  the  human,  and  suffered  with 
it  the  i»ains  of  crucilixion  and  death.  The 
doctrine  of  Apollinaris  Avas  lirst  condemned 
by  a  council  at  AlexaiTxlria  in  362.  ami  aft- 
erward in  a  more  formal  manner  by  a  coun- 
cil at  Rome  in  375.  an<l  by  another  council 
iu  388,  Avhich  deposed  Ai)ollmaris  ivom  his 


Glossary, 


7 


bishopric.  In  short,  it  was  attacked  at  the 
same  time  l)y  the  laws  of  the  emperors,  the 
decrees  of  councils,  and  the  writings  of  the 
learned;  and  sunk  bj- degrees  under  their 
united  force.    (1.  197,  202.) 

APOLOGETICS  (Grk.  iTroAoyrjriKO?, 

from  a7roAo7eIo-6ai,  to  speak  in  defense  of), 
the  department  of  theological  science  which 
defends  the  Christian  system  against  all 
external  attacks,  whether  by  unbelievers 
within  the  limits  of  Christendom  or  l)y  the 
adherents  of  false  religions.  It  particularly 
assumes  the  task  of  vindicating  the  revela- 
tion contained  in  the  8criptu]"es  by  demon- 
strating the  genuineness,  integrity,  and  au- 
thenticity of  the  several  books  of  the  Bible, 
and  is  so  far  coincident  with  Bibliolo- 
gy, which  see.  In  a  yet  Mider  sense,  it 
covei-s  i)ractically  the  same  ground  as  the 
Evidences  of  Christianity.  (FaiTar's  Crit- 
ical History  of  Free  Thought;  ITurst's 
History  of  Rationalism;  McCosh,  The  Su- 
pernatiiral  in  Relation  to  the  Xalural; 
Shedd, /7i67.  of  Docl.,hk.  ii.;  Ilagenbach, 
Hist,  of  Doct.,  $A  2S,  29, 117,  157,  238.  I.  415- 
552.) 

APOLOGIES  (Grk.  iTroAoyi'a,  a  defense) 
in  ecclesiastical  history  were  defenses  of 
(,'hristianity,  presented  to  heathen  emper- 
ors by  the  Christian  Fathers,  Avho  Avere 
therefore  called  Apologists.  The  first  was 
presented  to  the  Emperor  Hadrian,  by 
Quadratus,  A.D.  121),  a  fragment  of  Avhich 
is  preserved  by  Eusclnus;  but  another, 
presented  soon  after  to  the  same  by  Aris- 
tides,  a  converted  Athenian  philosopher,  is 
totally  lost.  Justin  Martyr  Avrote  two  apol- 
ogies. The  latter  (to  the  Iloman  Senate)  is 
iini)erfect  at  the  beginning;  but  the  former, 
addressed  to  Antoninus  Pius,  is  preserved 
entire.  The  apologies  are  curious  and  val- 
iial>le  I'cmains  of  antiquity,  as  showing 
what  were  the  objections  of  the  heathens, 
and  the  manner  in  which  they  were  rebut- 
ted by  the  early  Christians. 

APOLOGY  for  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion,   ^ce  Augsburg  Confession. 

A  POSTERIORI  (Eat.  from  thQ  latter), 
reasoning  from  efl'ect  to  cause,  or  from  ex- 
perience to  the  principles  and  presupposi- 
tions which  underlie  that  experience.  The 
a  posteriori  argument  for  the  existence  of 
God  includes  (1)  the  cosmological,  (2)  the 
teleological,  and  (G)  the  moral  arguments. 
(I.  57,  58.)    Sec  A  Priori. 

APPREHEND  AND  COMPRE- 
HEND. "We  apprehend  many  truths 
which  wc  do  not  comprehend.  The  great 
mysteries  of  our  faith— the  doctrine,  for  in- 
stance, of  the  Holy  Trinity,  we  lay  hold 


upon  it  (ad  jjrr/ie/ido),  we  hang  upon  it, 
our  souls  live  by  it;  but  we  do  not  take  it 
all  in,  we  do  not  comprehend  it;  for  it  is  a 
necessary  attribute  of  God  that  he  is  in- 
comprehensible; if  he  were  not  so,  he  Avould 
not  be  God,  or  the  being  that  comprehended 
him  would  be  God  also.  But  it  also  belongs 
to  the  idea  of  God  that  he  may  be  'oppre- 
hended,''  though  not  '■comprehended''  by 
his  reasonable  creatures;  he  has  maile 
them  to  know  him,  though  not  to  know  him 
all,  to  apin-ehend '  though  not  to  '  compre- 
hend' him."  (Trench,  On  the  Study  of 
Words,  p.  110.) 

A  PRIORI  (Eat.  from  the  former) .  Kea- 
soning  from  what  is  prior  either  as  a  con- 
dition of  thought,  or  as  a  condition  of  ex- 
istence— prior,  logically  or  chronologically. 
(1)  Reasoning  from  cause  to  eflect  (Aris- 
totle) ;  (2)  from  first  truths,  self-evident,  and 
essential  to  intelligence;  (3)  from  the  forms 
of  cognition  which  are  independent  of  ex- 
perience (Kant).  According  to  Kant  A  pri- 
ori applies  to  forms  of  knowledge  Avhich 
are  prior  in  logical  order  to  experience. 
How  far  d  priori  truths  or  ideas  are  jiossi- 
ble  is  the  great  controverted  question  of 
philosophy.  For  the  d  priori  arguments  for 
the  existence  of  God,  as  stated  by  Anselm, 
Des  Cartes,  S.  Clarke,  and  Cousin,  see  I. 
33-56. 

AaUARIANS  (Eat.  aqua,  Avater),  a 
sect  of  heretics  Avho  consecrated  their 
pretended  encharist  Avith  Avater  only,  in- 
stead of  wine,  or  Avine  mingled  Avith  Avater. 
This  they  did  tinder  the  delusion  that  it 
Avas  universally  unlaAvful  to  drink  Avine, 
although  our  Eord  instituted  the  eucharist 
Avith  Avine,  and  himself  drank  Avine  at  his 
communion  table.    (II.  414.) 

AaUINAS,  Thomas,  see  Thomists. 

ARCH-ffiOLOGY  (Greek,  apxaiokoyCa, 
the  knowledge  of  antiquities),  the  science 
Avhich  treats  of  all  the  elements  of  the  pub- 
lic and  private  life  of  ancient  peoples,  and 
especially  of  the  monumental,  artistic,  and 
material  remains  of  ancient  civilization. 
Biblical  Archaeology  treats  mainly  of  the 
antiquities  of  the  Jews,  together  Avith  that 
of  other  nations  mentioned  in  the  Script- 
ures. Christian  A rchceology  discusses  sci- 
entifically the  antiquities  of  the  Christian 
Church,  particularly  of  the  first  four  or  five 
centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  {MeClin- 
tock  and  Strong,  Schaff-Herzog,  Kitto, 
Smith,  and  Bible  dictionaries  generally; 
Bingham's  Antiquities  of  the  Christian 
Church.) 

ARIANISM.  This  ancient  heresy  Avas 
so  called  from  Arius,  a  ])i-esbyter  of  Alex- 


8 


Glossary. 


andria,  in  the  early  part  of  the  fourth  cent- 
ury. It  is  said  that  he  aspired  to  episcopal 
honors,  and  after  the  ileath  of  Achilles,  in 
A.l).  313,  felt  not  a  little  chagrined  that 
Alexander  should  be  preferred  before  him. 
Whether  this  circumstance  had  any  influ- 
ence on  his  opinions  it  is  impossible  to  say; 
but  one  day,  when  his  rival  (Alexander) 
had  been  addressing  the  clergy  in  favor  of 
the  orthodox  doctrine,  and  maintaining,  in 
strong  and  pointed  language,  '4that  the 
.Son  of  God  Avas  co-eternal,  co-essential, 
and  co-equal  Avith  the  Father,"  Arius  con- 
sidered this  as  a  species  of  Sabellianism, 
and  ventured  to  say  that  it  was  inconsist- 
ent and  impossible,  since  the  Father,  Avho 
begat,  must  be  before  the  Son,  who  -was  be- 
gotten: the  latter,  therefore,  could  not  be 
absolutely  eternal.  Alexander,  about  the 
year  320,  called  a  council  of  his  clergy,  by 
whom  the  reputed  heretic  was  deposed  and 
excommiinicated.  Arius  now  retired  into 
Palestine,  where  his  talents  and  address 
soon  made  a  number  of  converts;  and, 
among  the  rest,  the  celebrated  Eusebius, 
Bishop  of  Xicomedia,  and  other  bishops 
and  clergy  of  those  parts,  who  assembled 
in  council  and  received  the  excommunicat- 
ed presbyter  into  their  communion.  Euse- 
bius, also,  having  great  interest  with  C'on- 
stautia,  the  sister  of  Constantine  and  wife 
of  Licinius,  recommended  Arius  to  her  jn-o- 
tection  and  patronage;  through  which,  and 
by  his  own  eloquent  letters  to  the  clei-gy  in 
various  parts,  his  system  spread  with  great 
rapidity  and  to  a  vast  extent.  The  Emper- 
or Constantine,  who  ha<l  no  great  skill  in 
these  matters,  Avas  grieved  to  see  the  Chris- 
tian Chui-ch  (but  just  escaped  from  the  led 
dragon  of  i)crsecution)  thus  torn  by  intes- 
tine animosity  and  dissensions;  lie  there- 
fore determined  to  summon  a  general  coun- 
cil of  the  clergy,  Avliich  met  at  Nice,  A.D. 
,S2o,  and  contained  more  than  three  hundred 
bishops.  Constantine  attended  in  person, 
and  strongly  recommended  peace  and  una- 
nimity. Athanasius  Avas  the  chief  oppo- 
nent of  tiie  Arians.  At  length  the  Athana- 
sians  collected  a  numbei-  of  texts,  Avhich 
they  conceived  amounted  to  full  pi-oof  of 
the  Son  being  of  one  and  the  name  substance 
Avith  the  p-ather;  the  Arians  admitted  he 
Avas  of  like  substance,  the  difference  in  the 
Greek  i)hrases  being  only  in  a  single  letter 
— 6ju.oov'<7tos,  liomoousio.'f.,  oixoiovcrio^,  homoiou- 
sios.  At  length  the  former  Avas  decreed  to 
be  the  orthodox  faith,  and  the  Nicene  Creed 
Avas  framed  as  it  remains  at  this  day  so  far 
as  concerns  the  person  of  the  Son  of  God. 
ARISTOTLE  (3S1-322  B.C.),  the  most 


influential  philosopher  of  ancient  times, 
dominating  the  theology  and  philosophy  of 
Europe,  throughout  the  scholastic  era  down 
to  the  Revival  of  Letters.  From  his  seven- 
teenth year  he  Avas  for  twenty  years  a  pu- 
pil of  riato's,  Avhose  doctrines  he  subjected 
to  searching  criticism.  In  3i3  Philip  of 
Macedon  gave  him  the  task  of  educating 
his  son  Alexander,  then  thirteen  years  oUU 
When  Alexander  Avent  to  Persia,  Aristotle 
repaired  to  Athens,  and  began  teaching  jn 
the  Lyceum,  lie  Avas  accustomed  to  Avalk 
Avhilc  expounding  his  i)hiloso])hy  to  his 
students,  Avhencc  the  name  Peripatetics 
(TrepiVaTot).  For  an  account  of  his  doctrines 
— Logical,  ^Fetaphysical,  Physical,  and  Eth- 
ical—see the  Histories  of  Philosophy 
{Schtvegler,  pp.  12G-159;  Ueberweg,  vol.  i., 
pp.  137-180). 

AmUS,  born  toward  the  close  of  the 
third  century,  in  Libya,  or,  as  some  say,  in 
AlexoTidria.  He  Avrote  a  Avork,  TJialia, 
Avhich  Athanasius  quotes.  He  died  in  336. 
See  Arianism. 

ARMINIANISM,  strictly  speaking,  is 
that  system  of  religious  doctrine  Avhich  Avas 
taught  by  Arminius,  Professor  of  Divinitj' 
in  the  University  of  Lcydcn.  If,  therefore, 
Ave  Avould  learn  precisely  Avhat  Arminian- 
ism  is,  Ave  must  have  recourse  to  those  Avrit- 
ingsiuAvhich  that  divine  himself  has  stated 
and  expounded  his  tenets.  In  Holland  the 
Arminians  took  the  name  of  Remonstrants, 
from  a  Avriting  called  the  Remonstrance, 
Avhich  Avas  presented  by  them  to  the  States 
of  Holland,  1G09,  Avherein  theyi  educed  their 
doctrines  to  live  articles  opjiosed  to  the  five 
points  of  Calvinism,  namely :  (1)  Uncondi- 
tional Predestination;  (2)  Limited  Atone- 
ment—for  the  elect  only ;  (3)  Original  Guilt, 
i.  e.,  as  interpreted  by  Calvinists,  the  doc- 
trine that  human  beings  are  actualiy  born 
into  the  Avorld  justly  liable  to  eternal  ])un- 
ishment  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam, 
and  that,  by  consequence,  non -elect  in- 
fants are  actually  so  damned  ou  this  sole 
ground;  (4)  Irresistibility  of  Grace;  and  (3) 
Inamissibility  of  Grace.  The  five  points  of 
Arminianism  are  these:  (1)  Conditional 
Predestination;  (2)  Universal  Atonement, 
(3)  Prevenient  Grace,  rendered  necessary 
by  the  total  dei^ravity  and  moral  and  si)ir- 
itual  helplessness  of  man  in  his  natural 
state;  (4)  Resistibility  of  Grace;  and  (.'>) 
the  Amissibility  of  Grace. 

ARMINIUS,  James  (1560-1609),  spent 
six  years  as  a  student  at  Leyden,  and  then 
studied  at  Basle  and  under  Beza  at  Gene- 
va, finishing  his  course  Avith  i)hilosophical 
instruction  under  Zerabella  in  Italy.  From 


Glossary. 


9 


the  age  of  twenty-eight,  he  was  fourteen 
years  minister  iu  Ainsterflani.  He  suc- 
ceeded Francis  Junius  as  professor  of  di- 
vinity in  Leyden,  1G03,  which  position  he 
behi  until  his  death,  notwithstanding  much 
persecution  and  the  antagonism  of  the  sen- 
ior professor,  Gomarus.  See  A  rminiaiiism. 

ATHANASIAN  CREED  is  genei-ally 
admitted  not  to  have  been  drawn  up  by 
Athanasius,  but  is  just  as  universally  al- 
lowed to  contain  a  precise  expression  of  his 
sentiments.  (I.  34-37.)  The  term  "Atha- 
nasianism"  is  often  employed  to  denote  the 
orthodox  doctrineof  the  Trinity,  as  univer- 
sally accepted  in  Greek,  Latin,  and  Prot- 
estant communions.  The  true  key  to  the 
Athanasian  Creed  lies  in  the  knowledge  of 
the  errors  to  which  it  wrs  ojiimscd.  The 
Sabellians  considered  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Si)irit  as  one  in  i)crson:  this  was 
"confounding  the  persons:"  the  Arians 
considered  them  as  iliflering  iu  essence — 
three  beings;  this  was  "-dividing  tlic  sub- 
stance:" and  against  these  two  hypotheses 
was  the  creed  originally  framed. 

ATHANASIUS  (2*)(5-:]73),  the  celebrat- 
ed ijatriaich  of  Alexamlria,  resisted  Arius 
and  his  erroneous  iloctrines.  His  senti- 
ments as  to  the  Trinity  are  emboilicd  in  the 
creed  which  bc;irs  his  name,  which  see.  At 
tlie  Council  of  Nice,  though  then  but  a  dea- 
con of  Alexandria,  his  repntation  for  skill 
in  controversy  gained  him  an  honorable 
place  in  the  council,  and  witli  great  dex- 
terity he  exposed  tlie  sophistry  of  those  Avho 
jdeadcd  on  the  side  of  Arius.  Notwith- 
standing the  influence  of  Constantine,  Avho 
had  i-ecallcd  Arius  from  banishment,  and 
upon  a  i)lausible  confession  of  his  faith,  in 
Avinch  he  aflected  to  be  orthodox  in  his 
fienlinients,  »lirected  that  lie  should  be  re- 
ceived b}-  the  Alexandrian  Church,  Atha- 
nasius refnse<l  to  admit  hiiu  to  communion, 
and  exposed  his  i)icvaricntion.  The  Ari- 
ans  upon  this  exerted  themselves  to  raise 
tumults  at  Alexandria,  and  to  injure  the 
character  of  Athanasius  with  the  emperor, 
who  was  prevailed  upon  to  i)ronounce 
against  him  a  sentence  of  banishment.  In 
the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Constantius 
he  was  recalled;  but  was  again  disturbed 
and  deposed  through  the  inllucncc  of  the 
Arians.  Accusations  were  also  sent  against 
him  and  other  bishops  from  the  east  to  the 
west,  but  they  Avere  ac(iuittcd  by  Pope 
Julius  in  fidl  council.  Athanasius  was  re- 
stored to  his  see  ujmn  the  death  of  the  Ari- 
an  bifho)),  who  had  been  ])laced  in  it.  Ari- 
anism,  however,  being  in  favor  at  court,  he 
•was  condemned  by  a  council  convened  at 


Aries,  and  by  another  at  Milan,  and  was 
obliged  to  lly  into  the  deserts.  He  returned 
with  the  other  bishops  wlioin  Julian  the 
Apostate  recalled  from  banishment,  and  in 
A.U.  302  held  a  council  at  Alexandria, 
where  the  belief  of  a  consubstantial  Trin- 
ity Avas  openly  professed.  Many  now  M  erc 
recovered  from  Arianism,  and  brouglit  to 
subscribe  the  Xicene  Creed.  During  the 
reign  of  Jovian  also  Athanasius  held  ;in- 
other  council,  which  declared  its  adherence 
to  the  Xicene  faith;  and  with  the  exception 
of  a  short  l  etirement  under  A'alens,  he  was 
permitted  to  sit  down  in  quiet  an<l  govern 
his  aflcctionate  Church  of  Alexandria. 

ATHEISM  (Grk.  i  priv.,  0e6s,  God),  the 
doctrine  that  there  is  no  God.  The  term  is 
])roi)erly  applied  to  every  theory  of  tlic 
universe  which  does  not  i)ostiilate  an  In- 
telligent First  Cause.  Every  materialistic 
theory  is  Atheistic.  Under  this  title  is 
included  the  theory  which  seeks  to  account 
for  existence  by  reference  to  matter  and 
motion,  first  attrilnited  to  Diagoras  of 
^lelos  (Ueberweg's //is?o)"J/,  i.  SO;  Schweg- 
ler,  p.  2n);  and  the  early  elemental  theories 
of  Thales,  .Vnaximenes,  and  Ilcraclitus. 
Atheism  has  been  distinguished  from  An- 
ti-theism, and  the  former  has  been  sup- 
])Osed  to  imply  merel}'  the  non-recognition 
of  God,  while  the  latter  asserts  his  non- 
existence. This  distinctioTi  is  founded  on 
the  dilTerence  between  vnbelief  and  dis- 
belief (Chalmers,  Nat.  Theol.,  i.  5S),  and 
its  validity  is  admitted  in  so  far  as  it  dis- 
criminates merely  between  skeptical  and 
dogmatic  Atheism  (T>uchanan,  Faith  in 
GocU  i.  C^^G).  Plato,  treating  of  Atheism  as 
a  disorder  of  the  soul  (rawnjc  ttji/  vo^ov), 
says:  "There  have  always  been  persons, 
more  or  less  numerous,  who  have  had  the 
same  disorder.  I  have  known  many  of 
them,  and  can  tell  you  this,  that  no  one 
who  had  taken  up  in  youth  this  opinion, 
that  the  gods  ilo  not  exist,  ever  continueil 
in  the  same  until  he  was  old"  {Laws,  bk. 
X.  p.  888;  JoAvctt's  Plaio,  first  ed.,  iv,  398;. 

ATONEMENT  [i.  e  ,  at-one-ment),  is 
lucidly,  yet  closely  and  adequately,  defined 
by  Dr.  Summers  (1.  258),  as  "the  satisfac- 
tion made  to  God  for  the  sins  of  all  man- 
kind, original  and  actual,  by  the  media- 
tion of  Christ,  and  especially  by  his  passion 
and  death,  so  that  pardon  might  be  granted 
to  all,  Avliile  the  divine  perfections  are  kept 
m  harmony,  the  authority  of  the  Sovereign 
is  upheld,  and  the  strongest  motives  arc 
brought  to  bear  upon  sinners  to  lead  them 
to  repentance,  to  faith  in  Christ,  the  nec- 
essary conditions  of  pardon,  and  to  u  life 


10 


Glossari/. 


of  obedience,  hy  the  gracious  aiil  of  the 
Holy  Spirit."  Tliis  definition  combines 
with  due  proportion  and  emphasis  the 
jiropitiatory,  governmental,  and  moral 
elements  of  atonement,  and  guards  the 
iloclrine  against  Anlinomian  abuse.  Spe- 
cial treatises  on  Atonement  ai  e  numerous: 
1^1  i]cy,  A ionemoit  in  Christ;  Jiaxter,  Uni- 
rcrsal  Ilcdcmpiion  (Ki.jO,;  Goodwin,  Re- 
(Jehiption  Redeemed  (IGjO);  Still inglleet. 
On  ChrisVs  Satis/dction  (Woi'ks,  vol.  iii.): 
^lagcc.  On  AtonemcnL  and  Saerifice  (three 
vols.,  London:  1S;j2;  ;  Jenkyn,  On  the  Ex- 
tent of  the  Atonement;  Ilodge,  Atonement; 
Horace  Bushnell,  Vicarious  Sacrifice; 
Wardlaw,  Discourses  on  the  Atonement; 
(  ami»l)oll,  Xature  of  the  Atoiiement; 
Smealon's  Our  Lord's  and  the  Apostles'' 
Doctrine  of  Atononenl  (two  vols.)*,  Caves's 
Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice,  etc.  ('om- 
pare  also,  besides  the  appropriate  sections 
in  the  works  on  Dogmatics,  Shcdcl,  History 
vf  Doctrines  (bk.  v.);  Neander,  Planting 
and  Training  (bk.  vi.,  ch.  i.);  and  Cun- 
\\\n'j:\v<\m' a  Historical  Theologu  (vol.  li.  ch. 
,\  \'w ... 

ATTRITION  (Lnt.  atlritis,  from  ad 
and  tcrcrc,  to  lub),  in  l^onli^h  theolog}-, 
norrow  for  sin  on  account  of  the  fear  of 
punishment  alone.  It  differs  fi-om  contri- 
tion, which  arises  fi'om  the  love  of  (Jod. 
(lf.CI3,  314.) 

AUGSBURG  CONFESSION.  InloCO 
a  diet  of  the  (ierman  ])rinccs  was  convened 
by  the  Emperor  Charles  \'.  to  meet  at  Augs- 
burg, for  the  exiiress  i)urposc  of  com])Osing 
the  religious  troubles  which  then  distracted 
Germany.  On  this  occasion  Mclanchthon 
was  employed  to  draw  \\\^  this  famous  con- 
fession of  faith  which  may  be  considered 
as  the  creed  of  the  German  reformers,  es- 
pecially of  the  more  temi)eratc  among 
them.  It  consisted  of  twenty-one  articles, 
including  tlic  following  points:  The  Trin- 
ity, Original  Sm,  the  Incarnation,  Justifi- 
cation by  Faith,  the  Word  and  Sacraments, 
Necessity  of  Good  Works,  the  rerpctuityof 
the  Church,  Infant  Baptism,  the  Ivord's- 
Bupper,  nepcntance  and  Confession,  the 
Proper  Use  of  the  Sacraments,  Church  Or- 
der, Ilitcs  and  Ceremonies,  the  ^lagistracy, 
a  Future  .Judgment,  Freewill,  tire  Worship 
of  Saints,  etc.  It  then  proceeds  to  state  the 
•  abuses  of  which  the  reformers  chiefly  com- 
ll)lained,  as  the  denial  of  the  sacramental 
•cup  to  the  laity,  tlie  celibacy  of  the  clergy, 
the  mass,  auricular  confession,  forced  ab- 
stinence from  meats,  monastic  vows,  and 
tlie  enormous  power  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
The  confession  was  read  at  a  full  meeting 


of  the  Diet,  and  signed  by  the  Elector  of 
Saxony,  and  three  other  princes  of  the  Ger- 
man Empire.  John  Faber,  afterward  Arch- 
bishop of  Vienna,  and  two  other  Romish 
divines,  were  employeil  to  draw  up  an  an- 
swer to  this  confession,  which  was  replied 
to  by  ^Nlelanchthon  in  his  '"Apology  for  the 
Augsburg  Confession-'  in  1531. 

AUGUSTIN  (354-430),  Bishop  of  Hippo 
—not  to  be  confounded  with  Augusliu,  fiist 
Archbishop  of  Cantcrlniry,  who  came  to 
England  in  507  as  the  missionary  of  Greg- 
ory I.  His  mother,  Monica,  was  a  i)iou9 
woman,  whose  i)rayers  were  answered  by 
the  conversion  of  lier  dissolute  son.  His 
writings  have  hail  «niite  as  i)otent  an  in- 
fluence on  the  <logmas  of  theoh>gy  as  those 
of  Aristotle  exercised  in  philosophy.  His 
ti'eatise  on  the  Freedom  of  the  Will  was 
written  in  .305;  his  Confessions^  in  308; 
most  of  the  Avorks  against  the  Donatists, 
between  400  and  415;  those  against  the 
Pelagians,  between  412  and  428;  and  the 
City  of  God,  begun  fn  413,  was  finished  in 
426.  In  his  Itetractions  (426),  with  great 
candor,  he  exi)lains  and  (jualifies  his  former 
writings.  His  systQin  of  «loctrine  was  that 
generally  known  in  modern  times  as  Ccd- 
xnnism  (which  see).  Augustin  died  during 
the  siege  of  Hippo  by  the  Vandals  imder 
Genseric. 

AUTHENTICITY  (Grk.  avdevTiKo^, 
warranted),  trustworthiness,  reliability- 
distinguished,  ill  the  Logic  of  Evidence, 
iroxw  genuineness.  "A  genuine  book  is 
that  which  was  Avritlen  by  the  i)erson 
whose  name  it  bears  as  the  author  of  it. 
An  authentic  book  is  that  which  relates 
matters  of  fact  as  they  really  haj)pened." 
(Up.  Watson,  Apology  for  the  IJible,  p.  33; 
1.429-404.)  

BAPTISM  (transferred  to  English  from 
Greek,  ^dTrrtcr/ia,  /Ban-Ti'^uj; ,  the  divinely  aji- 
poinled  rite  of  piofession  of  the  Christian 
i-eligion  and  of  initiation  into  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  For  fuller  definition,  see  II. 
352.  Only  a  few  references  to  tlie  abnll- 
dant  literature  can  be  made  here.  Sum- 
mers On  liaptism  is  clear  and  thorough. 
Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  with 
Gale's  Refiections  and  WalVs  Defense  is 
encyclopa?dic  and  classic;  as  are  Dr.  Dale's 
four  volumes  on  Classic,  Judaic,  Johun- 
nic,  and  Christie  Baptism. 

BEATIFIC  VISION  is  a  theological 
phrase  used  to  signify  the  vision  of  God  in 
heaven,  iK'rinitte«l  to  the  blessed.   (I.  364.) 

BELLARMIN,  t.anhnal  (1542-1621), 
"was  one  of  the  most  learned  and  authorita- 


Glossarij. 


11 


live  of  Uoinisli  i)oleiniciil  tlieulogiaiis,  ^vho 
Avould  have  become  pope  but  for  the  jeul-  I 
oiisj'  which  the  cardinals  entertained  for 
the  Jesuits,  to  wliose  ortler  he  belonged. 
His  chief  work  is  his  Body  of  Controver- 
sy^ in  which  he  generally  lays  down  the 
positions  of  his  o[)i)onent3  candidly,  there- 
by exposing  himself,  accoi'ding  to  IMos- 
heim,  to  the  rcpi'oaches  of  many  Romish 
writers,  lie  is  a  much  better  source  for 
llomibh  doctrine  than-  liossuct  or  ]M6hler. 
For  a  full  <liscussion  of  his  Notes  of  the 
Church,"  see  II.  227-244. 

BENGEL,  John  Albert  (1G87-1751),  a 
Lutheran  theologian  of  i)rofonnd  critical 
ju<lgnjent,  extensive  leaining,  anrl  solid 
piety.  He  entered  Tiibingcn  in  1707,  devot- 
ing himself  to  philosophy,  general  jjhilol- 
ogy,  and  sacre(l  criticism.  In  1713  he  was 
:ipi)ointed  professor  at  Denkendorf,  a  sem- 
inary for  the  training  of  ministerial  can- 
diihites,  retaining  the  post  for  twenty- 
eight  years.  He  was  the  pioneer  of  modern 
New  Testament  textual  criticism.  IIis 
Gnomon  of  the  Ne\v^  Testament  was  so 
highly  prized  by  John  "Wesley  that  he 
translated  most  of  its  notes,  and  incorpo- 
rate* I  them  in  his  Notes  on  the  Xeio  Test- 
ament. 

BERNARD  of  Clairvanx  (1091-1153), 
eminent  mediieval  mystic,  theologian,  and 
hy\nn-writer,  l)(>canie  the  first  abbot  of 
c'lairvaux  in  IIU.  In  lUO  we  find  him  op- 
l»osing  Abelard,  against  whose  views  he 
<leveloi)ed  the  mystical-subjective  .theory 
of  the  atonement.  (See  I.  2:)2.)  He  se- 
verely censured  the  celebration  of  the  fes- 
tival of  the  Immacidate  Conception  of  the 
Virgin,  an  innovation  which  began  in  his 
time.  In  1145  he  was  the  successful  preach- 
er of  the  Second  Crusade  throughout 
France  and  Germany.  He  was  opposed 
to  many  of  the  Romish  corruptions  in  doc- 
trine, discipline,  and  manners.  Luther 
says:  "If  there  has  ever  been  a  i)ious  monk 
wlio  feared  (Jod,  it  was  St.  Bernard."  At 
his  death  he  left  one  hundred  and  sixty 
monasteries  of  his  order. 

BEZA,  Theodore  (1510-1605),  was  one  of 
the  most  eminent  of  the  Reformers,  the 
friend  and  coadjutor  of  Calvin,  upon  Avhose 
death,  in  15G4,  he  succeeded  to  the  Geneva 
leadershii).  He  completed  a  translation  of 
the  New  Testament  into  Latin,  in  155G 
(printed  by  R.  Stephens,  Paris,  1557),  using 
a  MS.  of  the  four  gospels,  which  in  1581  he 
presented  to  the  University  of  Cambridge. 
This  IS  known  as  the  Codex  Bezce,  a  fac- 
simile of  which  was  imblished  in  1793.  He 
took  a  lively  interest  in  the  affairs  of  the 


Church  of  England,  and  his  letters  to 
Grindal  and  others  were,  and  still  are,  very 
unpalatable  to  the  High-church  party. 

BIBLIOLOGY  (Grk.  ptjiXioy,  diminu- 
tive of  /3i'/3A.os,  book,  and  A670S,  doctrine), 
the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scriiitures;  that 
dei)artment  of  theology  which  sui)i»lies  a 
scientific  exposition  of  the  genuineness,  in- 
tegrity, authenticity,  and  snfliciency  of  the 
books  of  the  IJible.  It  is  largely  coinciilent 
with  Apologetics,  or  Evidences  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  includes  many  of  the  topics  of 
Biblical  Introduction.   (I.  27,  415-552.) 

BINGHAM,  Josc])h  (16G8-1723),alcarne<l 
and  laborious  divine  of  the  Church  of  En- 
gland. In  1708  he  published  the  first  vol- 
ume of  his  cele])rated  Anticjuiiies  of  Oie 
Christian  Church,  which  Avas  com])leled 
by  the  issue  of  the  eighth  volume,  in  1722. 
This  great  work  was  translated  into  Latin, 
and  published  at  Halle  in  1724-38,  and 
again  in  1751-Gl.  It  is  a  perfect  repertory 
of  facts  in  ecclesiastical  archajology,  and 
has  not  been  sui)erseded  or  even  ap- 
proached by  any  book  since  ]  trod  need.  Its 
High-church  views  make  it  acceptable  to 
the  Romanists,  who  have  jn-inted  a  revised 
German  translation  (Augsburg:  1788).  A 
very  convenient  and  cheap  edition  of  Bing- 
ham, for  the  use  of  students,  was  published 
in  London  in  1852  (two  vols.  8vo. ),  and 
may  be  easily  obtained. 

BIOLOGY  (Grk.  ^lo?,  life,  and  A6yo«, 
doctrine),  the  science  of  life,  including  all 
scientific  investigation  as  to  any  form  of 
life,  and  as  to  the  relations  of  the  different 
orders  of  animate  existence.  The  term 
biological  thus  covers  the  whole  range  of 
physiology  and  natural  history,  and  espe- 
cially the  inquiries  connected  with  evolu- 
tion. (See  "NVheweirs  History  of  8cie7i- 
tific  Ideas,  and  Carpenter's  JIuman  Bhys- 
iology.) 

BONUM  STJMMTJM,  a  Latin  phrase 
signifying  the  chief  or  highest  good,  and 
einployed  by  ancient  ethical  philosophers 
to  denote  that  in  the  pursuit  and  attain- 
ment of  which  the  progress,  perfection,  and 
happiness  of  human  beings  consist. 

BROAD-CHURCH,  a  designation  ap- 
plieil  to  the  latitudinarian  school  of  the 
English  Establishment,  in  contrast  witlv 
the  High -church  (altitudinarian),  and  the 
Low-church  (platitudinarian)  parties.  The 
first  is  rationalistic,  the  second  Romish, 
and  the  third  evangelical. 

BULLARIXJM,  an  authoritative  col- 
lection of  papal  bnlls.    (I.  522,  523.) 

BURNET,  Gilbert  (1643-1715), Bishop  of 
I  Salisbury,  to  which  see  he  was  appointed 


12 


Glossarij. 


iu  16S8,  upon  the  accession  of  William  and 
Maiy.  Tlis  mo.st  iiujjortant  publications 
are  the  JTistoin/  of  (he  Reformation  of  the 
Church  of  England  and  the  Exposition 
of  the  Thirtij-nine  Articles^  so  often  re- 
ferred to  by  Dr.  Summers.  The  most  re- 
markable of  his  -workr.  was  posthumously 
published  under  the  title  Historjj  of  ITis 
Own  Times,  from  the  Kestoration  of  King 
Charles  II.  to  the  Conclusion  of  the  Treaty 
of  Peace  at  Utrecht.  T.urnct's  Avoiks  in 
freneral  do  honor  to  both  his  head  and 
heart,  though  disfigured  at  times  by  a  lack 
of  taste  and  by  evidences  of  hurry.  IIis 
IlKdory  of  the  Reformation  has  been 
much  criticised,  but  probably  now  stands 
in  higher  repute  than  ever  before. 

BUTliER,  Joseph  (l(;92-17r)2),  Tiishop  of 
Durham,  Avas  born  of  Trcsbyterian  par- 
ents, but  early  conformed  to  the  Churcli  of 
England,  and  March  17,  1714,  removed  to 
Oriel  College,  Oxford.  In  17CG,  having  been 
apijoiuted  Clerk  of  the  Closet  to  Queen 
Cai-oline,  he  presented  to  her  his  celebrated 
•work,  The  AnalorjD  of  Jleligion,  Xatnral 
and  Revealed,  to  the  Constitution  and 
Course  of  Xatiire.  The  Analog}/  was 
an  elTectunl  answer  to  the  Deism  wlucli 
then  flourished  in  England,  and  has  made 
pennancntly  untenable  that  f(n-m  of  infi- 
delity. Butler  also  left  a  volume  of  ser- 
mons, in  Avhich  the  true  theory  of  lUhics  is 
fully  and  forcibly  set  forth.  To  him  be- 
longs the  distinction  of  having  first  estab- 
lislicd  the  supi-emacy  of  conscience,  as  in- 
dicated in  the  famous  senlencc,  "Had  it 
strength  as  it  has  right,  had  it  power  as  it 
has  manifest  authority,  it  -would  absolutely 
govern  the  world." 

CALVIN,  Jolm  (150i>-15&i),  one  of  tlic 
most  eminent  of  the  Reformers,  was  des- 
tined by  his  father  for  the  priesthood  of  the 
Koman  Church,  and  at  a  veiy  early  age  en- 
tered upon  the  cure  of  souls,  though  not 
yet  in  orders.  About  this  time,  his  father, 
changing  his  mind,  tunicd  (  alvin  to  tlic 
etudy  of  law,  but  the  perusal  of  the  Bible 
luid  already  satisfied  him  of  many  Koinish 
errors,  and,  going  to  Paris  about  1530,  he 
devoted  himself  to  divinity.  In  his  twen- 
ty-fourth year  he  was  recognized  as  the 
liead  of  the  Beformation  in  France.  In 
17>Z.%  uiK)!!  the  publication  of  his  views,  to- 
fc-ether  with  those  of  liis  friend  Cop,  rector 
of  the  University  of  Paris,  both  mcui-red 
the  displeasure  of  the  Sorbounc,  and  Avere 
compelled  to  leave  the  city.  Tlie  earliest 
•Latin  edition  of  Calvin's  Inslitutcs  of  the 
Christian  Religion  was  published  iu  ICC'J, 


though  i:,  is  probable  that  the  work  was 
first  printed  in  French,  the  French  dedica- 
tion to  Francis  I.  being  dated  August  1, 
1535.  In  this  Avork,  produced  iu  Calvin's 
twenty-sixth  year,  Ave  find  his  comidcte 
theological  system,  noi'  is  there  any  reason 
to  believe  that  he  ever  altered  his  opinions 
on  any  essential  point.  It  is  donbtful  if 
the  history  of  literatnre  afl'ords  another  in- 
stance of  a  Avork  produced  at  so  early  au 
age  which  has  exercised  so  prodigious  an 
intluence.  On  his  way  to  Basel,  iu  153(3,  he 
was  stopped  at  Geneva,  and  by  F'arel  per- 
suaded to  settle  there.  With  the  exception 
of  a  short  i)eriod  of  exile,  he  leinained  at 
the  head  of  the  ecclesiastical  and  civil  af- 
fairs of  that  city  until  his  death. 

CALVINISM  is  properly  the  system 
of  predesLinarian  theology  formulated  and 
taught  by  John  Calvin,  and  adopted  by  the 
Heformed  Churches  of  Continental  Euro])e, 
and  the  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists, 
and  Baptists  of  Scotland,  England,  Ireland, 
and  the  United  States.  Substantially  the 
same  views  Avcre  set  forth  by  Augu.stin, 
Bishop  of  11  ippo,  from  whom  this  theolog- 
ical system  is  often  denominated  "Augus- 
tinianism."  For  thc'"-five  ])oints"  of  Cal- 
vinism, see  Ari)iinia)iis7n. 

CASUISTRY  is  that  branch  of  moral 
science  which  treats  of  cases  of  conscience 
(casus  conscientia'),  i.  e.,  of  apparent  con- 
flicts of  duties  which  disturb  and  peri)lex 
the  moral  judgment.  Kant  calls  it  "the 
dialectics  of  conscience."  The  Avord  may 
thus  have  a  good  meaning;  but  it  ordina- 
rily indicates  sophistical  perversion  or 
evasion  of  the  moral  law.  The  books  of  so- 
called  Moral  Theologij  in  the  Ilomish 
Church  are  generally  repertories  of  casu- 
istry, and  poison  the  very  fountains  of 
right  living.  In  his  Provincial  Letters, 
Pascal  effectually  exposed  tlie  scandalous 
decisions  of  Jesuitical  casuistrj'. 

CATEGORICAL  IMPERATIVE  is 
an  exjjression  employed  by  Immauuel 
Kant  (172-1-18041,  and  generally  since  his 
time,  to  denote  tlie  direct  c(mimand,  the 
"thou  shalt"  of  the  moral  law.  It  is  the 
immediate  sense  of  the  moral  law  as  tin- 
qualifiedly  binding  us  to  obedience  of  its 
precepts.  Kant  said:  "Act  from  a  ma.xnu 
at  all  times  fit  for  hnv  universal."  llis 
doctrjne  does  not  differ  from  tliat  of  Bishop 
Butler,  Avho  first  establislied  llie  suprem- 
acy of  conscience.    (See  Ruder.) 

CATHARI  (Crk.  Ka6ap6<:,  \n\vc),  a  name 
applied  at  different  eras  in  Cliurcli  history 
to  various  sects  of  Puritans  (as  the  A'ora- 
tians,  Avhich  see),  all  of  which  were  char- 


Ghssarij. 


13 


actcrizcfl  by  aimin-  at  or  pri'leiuliug  to 
l>eculiai-  purity  of  life  ami  uiamiers.  (See 
Jl.  105.) 

CATHOLIC  (Grk.  KaBo\iK6?,  universal) 
is  a  designatiou  of  the  Cliris^iiaii  Cluurh  as 
extended  throughout  the  world,  and  de- 
signed to  embrace  all  mankind.  In  the 
Apostles'  Creed  we  thus  confess  our  belief 
in  the  "'holy  Catholic  Church,"  lu  the 
lirst  centuries  the  term  is  often  employed 
to  distinguish  the  orthodox  from  heretics; 
as,  for  example,  the  Athanasians  from  the 
Arians.  It  should  never  be  used  of  the 
liomish  communion  without  qualification. 
That  sect  is  projierly  the  lioman  Catholic 
Church.  The  word  is  also  u.-ed  to  desig- 
nate those  apostolic  epistles  which  Mere 
not  addressed  to  any  local  Church  or  indi- 
vidual, as  the  Catholic  Epistles  of  St. 
John. 

CAUSE  was  divided  by  Ari&totlc  into 
viatcrial,  formal,  efflcicnl,  and  final. 
Tliese  distinctions  may  be  illustrated  by 
tlic  construclion  of  a  hou^e:  the  W(M)d. 
brick,  oik  stone  out  of  wluch  the  hou^e  is 
made  is  the  'material  cause;  tlic  jjlan  of  the 
liouse  in  tlie  mind  of  the  architect  is  the 
formal  cause;  the  actual,  builder  of  tlie 
house  is  the  efficient  cause;  and  the  final 
cause  IS  the  end,  for  the  sake  of  which  the 
house  IS  buiU.  For  equivalent  distinc- 
tions, see  I.  C2.  Dr.  Wmchell's  views  arc 
contained  in  I.  G2,  foot-note.  For  the  iloc- 
tnne  of  cflicient  cause,  see  1.  12;^,  fool-note. 

CAUSES,  OCCASIONAL,  DOC- 
TRINE OF.  Tins  i)hra.-e  has  been  em- 
ployed by  the  Cartesians  to  explain  the 
mode  of  communication  between  mind  ami 
matter.  The  soul  being  a  thinking  sub- 
stance, and  extension  being  the  essence  of 
body,  it  issujiiiosed  that  no  inlcrconrse  can 
take  ])lace  between  them  without  the  in- 
tervention of  the  First  Cause.  The  Deity 
himself,  therefore,  on  the  occafn'on  of  cer- 
tain modifications  in  ouc  iniii<ls,  excites 
the  correspomling  movements  of  l)ody; 
and,  on  the  occasion  of  certain  changes  in 
our  body,  he  awakens  the  corresponding 
feelings  in  the  mind.  This  theory,  which  j 
is  involved  in  the  i)hilosophy  of  Des  Cartes, 
was  fully  developed  by  Malebrauchc  and  j 


considered  Christ  an  ordinary  man  in  his 
birtli,  cai-eer,  and  endowments  until  llie 
tlescent  of  the  Spirit  on  him  at  his  baptism. 
(I.  3W.) 

CHALMERS,  Dr.  Thomas  (17S0-1847), 
an  eminent  Scottish  divine,  philanthropist, 
and  phik)soi)her.  After  a  university  course 
at  St.  Andrews,  he  entered  upon  a  ministe- 
rial career  distinguislied  more  for  enthu.si- 
astic  devotion  to  mathematics  and  chemis- 
try than  to  divinity.    In  180<.),  having  been 
invited  to  prepare  the  article  on  C7/r/s- 
tianitij  for  ihc  Edinbnrg  Encyclopedia,  his 
study  of  Its  divine  credentials  led  to  that; 
spiritual  revolution  which  his  journal  and 
letters  so  clearly  reveal.   This,  of  course, 
revolutionized  also  his  iniblic  ministry,  and 
when  he  visited  London  in  1817,  "all  the 
world"  writes  Wilberforce,  "was  wild 
about  Dr.  Chalmers."    In  1823  he  became 
l)rofcssor  of  floral  Thilosophy  in  St.  An- 
drews, and  in  182S  was  transferretl  to  the 
chair  of  Theology  at  Edinburgh.   In  1843 
four  hundred  ministers  of  the  Scottish  Es- 
tablishmep.t,  with  (Jialmers  at  their  head, 
left  the  National  Cluircli  aiul  organized  the 
Free  Church  of  Scotland.   Of  his  numerous 
writings  m.iy  be  mentioned  tlie  following 
as  most  important:  Xatural  Theology  (2 
vols.;.  Christian  Ex'idences  .2vols.);  Mor- 
al Philosophy,   ConDnercial  and  Astro- 
nomical Discourses;  Political  Economy  ;2 
vols.'.;  Lectures  on  JRo)na7is  (4  vols.j;  and 
Institutes  of  C'hristia)iity.   His  Life  and 
Correspondence  has  been  written  by  Kev. 
Dr.  ^V.  Ilanna,  but  is  not  considered  equal 
to  the  reputation  of  its  subject. 

CHARISM  (Grk.xapto-M-a,  a  gift),  a  fa- 
vor which  one  receives  without  any  merit 
of  his  own;  the  gift  of  faith,  knowledge, 
holiness,  virtue;  particularly,  the  extraor- 
dinary powers  bestowed  upon  certain 
Christians  in  apostolic  times  for  the  serv- 
ice of  the  Church,  as  the  gift  of  tongues, 
miracles,  etc.  (1.405.) 

CHEMNITIUS,  or  Von  Kcmnitz,  Mar- 
tin (1522-15S()),  an  eminent  Lutheran  theolo- 
gian, became  rector  at  Konigsberg  in  154^. 
He  began  the  scientific  study  of  dogmatics 
at  Wittenberg  in  1552,  attaching  himself 
closelv  toMelanchthon.  A  controversy  witli 


others.   Malebranche's  doctrine  is  com-  i  the  I^oman  Catholics  led  to  the  writing  of 


monly  called  the  "vision  of  all  things  in 
God,"  wlio  is  the  "light  of  all  our  seeings," 
CERINTHIANS,  followers  of  Cerin- 
thus,  an  heresiarch  who  flourished  in  the 
times  of  the  Apostle  John.  Some  consider 
his  system  pure  (Jnosticism  (which  see), 
others  a  compound  of  Gnosticism,  Judaism, 
and  Christianity.  It  seems  that  Cennthus 


lais  Examcn  ConciUi  Tridenliat  (1505-157,% 
4  vols.),  which  is  still  classical  on  the  sub- 
ject. From  1574  he  exerted  himself  to  in- 
duce the  Churches  of  Saxony  and  Suabia 
to  adopt  the  Formula  Concordice,  securing 
admiration  both  for  the  prudence  and 
ness  of  his  conduct  and  for  the  depth  ami 
extent  of  his  knowledge.   lie  has  been  pror 


14 


Glossary. 


iiounced  tlie  '•first  great  theologian  pro- 
duced by  the  Kefoi-iuation." 

CHRISTOLiOGY  (Grk.  xpit^rd?,  Christ, 
and  Ad-yos,  tloctvine)  that  department  of 
theology  Avhich  sets  forth  the  doctrine  of 
the  person  of  c:hrist,  defending  the  ortho- 
dox doctrine  of  one  person  and  two  natures 
against  the  heresies  of  two  persons  (Ncsto- 
rianisni),  one  nature  (Eutychianisni,  Mo- 
jiophysitisni),  one  Avill  (.Monothelitism), 
that  Christ  was  destitute  of  a  human  soul 
(Apollinarianisni),  that  his  humanity  was 
a  mere  phantasm  (Docetism),  etc.  (I.  178- 
2U.)  See  Dr.  Philip  Schaff's  Person  of 
Christ. 

CHRYSOSTOM  (347-407)  was  the  gold- 
on-mouthed  pidpit  orator  and  greatest 
commentator  of  the  Greek  Church,  which 
reveres  him  above  all  other  Fathers.  His 
ministerial  life  Avas  passed  at  Antioch  and 
Constantinople,  twelve  years  in  the  former 
city  and  six  in  the  latter.  At  Constantino- 
l)le,  where  he  Avas  patriarch,  he  preached  an 
earnest,  practical  Christianity,  insisted  on 
discipline,  and  attacked  the  vices  of  the  age 
and  the  AvorldlLiiess  of  the  imperial  court. 
His  unsparing  sermons  aroused  the  angei- 
of  the  Empress  Eudoxia,  and  the  last  three 
years  of  his  life  were  i)assed  in  exile.  Es- 
timating him  as  a  preacher,  Dr.  Broadus 
says:  "Chrysostom  has  never  had  a  supe- 
rior, and  i  t  may  be  gravely  doubted  whether 
lie  has  had  an  equal  iu  the  history  of 
preaching."  See  Broadus's  History  of 
Preaching. 

CGENA  DOMINI,  a  Latin  jdirase 
meaning  the  Lord's-supper.   The  eucha-  ' 
list  is  thus  denominated  only  once  iu  the 
Scriptures  (1  Cor.  xi.  20). 

COMMUNISM  (French,  communisme, 
from  commun,  common),  the  doctrine  that 
society  should  be  reorganized  by  regulat- 
ing property  -  rights,  industry,  and  the 
vesoui'ces  of  livelihowl,  as  Avell  as  the  do- 
mestic relations;  socialism;  especially  the 
docti-ine  of  a  community  of  proi>erty,  or 
t'.ie  denial  of  individual  property-rights. 
The  theory  has  been  supported  partly  on 
economic  gj-ounds,  partly  on  ethical.  Its 
pleas  are,  that  by  united  production,  and 
equal  distribution,  an  increase  in  the  com- 
fort and  happiness  of  human  life  Avould  be 
secured;  ami  that  by  the  same  means  the 
jealousies  and  iJltterness  of  competition  ' 
and  class  interests  would  be  ended.  Its  i 
criticism  of  the  existing  order,  under  rec- 
ognition of  rights  of  private  property,  is 
that  it  involves  multitudes  in  poverty  and 
suffering,  Avliile  others  acc4imulate  wealth. 
The  theoiy  in  some  cases  passes  to  an  at- 


tack on  the  social  life  as  based  on  the  con- 
stitution of  the  family,  alleging  that  this  is 
another  fortress  of  class  interests.  In  this 
extreme  form  the  leveling  process,  after  re- 
ducing men  to  a  herd,  Avouid  ])ut  the  guid- 
ance of  individuals  under  command  of  po- 
litical government,  for  disti-ibution  of  food, 
clothing,  work,  and  for  icgulation  of  all 
social  conditions.  This  theory  proceeds  on 
a  disregard  of  personal  rights,  and  assigns- 
imi)Ossible  functions  to  civil  government. 

CONCEPTION,  IMMACTJLATE,  of 
the  Virgin  Mary.  The  Greek  and  Eatiii 
Churches  teach  that  the  Virgin  ]Mary  Avas 
conceived  and  born  Avithout  original  sin. 
Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  in  the  twelfth  cent- 
ury, rejected  the  dogma,  as  did  the  Thom- 
ists  and  Dominicans,  Avhile  the  Scotists  and 
Franciscans  defended  it.  The  Council  of 
Trent  excepted  the  Virgin  when  decreeing 
that  all  men  are  born  in  sin.  In  1708  Clem- 
ent XI.  appointed  the  festival  of  the  Im- 
maculate Conception,  and  at  its  celebra- 
tion, Dec.  8,  1854,  Pope  Pius  IX.  solemnly 
l)ronounced  the  Immaculate  Concpptiou  of 
the  Virgin  an  article  of  faith. 

CONCEPTTTALISM  (Lat.  con,  Avith, 
and  capcre^  to  seize),  a  philoso])hical  doc- 
trine intennediate  between  Realism  and 
A'ojjjma^JSJJi,  teaching  that  the  mind  in  the 
exercise  of  a  real  power  of  tho\ight  forms 
general  notions  or  concepts,  universals 
Avhich  correspond  to  general  terms  or  com- 
mon noiins  in  language,  and  to  classes 
(genera  and  species),  in  nature.  Kealism, 
in  its  extreme  form,  teaches  that  universals 
liave  a  real,  objective  existence,  indepeml- 
cnt  of,  and  anterior  to,  the  in<lividual.s 
composing  theclass  [luiiversalia ante  rem). 
According  to  this  view,  a  man  is  represent- 
ed as  the  manifestation  of  the  general  prin- 
ciple of  humanity  in  a  particular  bo<ly  or 
organism.  Human  nature  existed  before 
any  man  Avas  born.  Moderate  Realism 
teaches  that  the  genus  or  class  has  exist- 
ence only  iu  the  individuals  comi)osing  it 
(universalia  in  re);  but  that  generic  hu- 
manity (for  examjde)  is  a  substance  nu- 
merically one  or  identical  in  all  men.  Nom- 
inalism teaches  that  there  is  to  general 
terms  or  common  names  no  answering  i  c- 
ality,  either  in  nature  (genera)  or  in  the 
human  mind  (concepts).  The  naked,  emi»- 
ty  Avord,  symbolical  of  the  im potency  or 
negation  of  thought,  is  all  {universalia 
post  rem).  According  to  Nominalism, 
nothing  exists  but  individual  things  and 
names  of  things,  and  universals  are  mere 
names.  According  to  Couccptuahsm,  there 
arc  thiee  great  parallel  scries— A^ords, 


Glossary. 


15 


thoughts,  and  things,  or  names,  concepts, 
anil  (^lasses.  The  names  properly  beh)ng  to 
grammar  and  philology,  the  concepts  to 
logic  and  philosophy,  and  the  classes  to 
natural  science. 

CONCOMITANCE  (Lat.  con,  with, 
and  coniilari.^  to  accompany),  a  doctrine 
said  to  liave  been  invented  by  Tliomas 
A(iuinas,  is  a  scholastic  attempt  to  justify 
Koine's  withholding  the  cup  from  the  laity 
in  the  Lord's-sujiper.  bince  the  wafer  is 
transformed  into  the  body  of  Christ,  it  is 
held  that  the  blood  also  is  present  in  it: 
lience  communion  in  one  kind  is  a  coin- 
uuinion  of  llie  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 
(IJ.  4o5.) 

CONDIGNITY  and  CONGRUITY, 

Iklerit  of.  The  .Scotists  held  tliat  man  m  his 
natural  state  can  so  live  as  to  Ocacrie  the 
grace  of  God  unto  salvation,  this  natural 
litness  before  conversion  being  such  as  to 
oblige  God  to  grant  regenerating  grace. 
This  is  the  merit  of  congruUij.  The  Tlunn- 
ists  held  that  man,  by  God's  aid,  can  so 
live  as  to  mcril  eternal  life.  This  is  the 
merit  of  condiunUy .    (II.  (52,  ]:U.) 

CONSUBSTANTIATION  (Lat.  con, 
witli,  and  subslantid,  sul)stance),  a  tenet  of 
Lutherans  respecting  the  presence  of  Christ 
in  the  Loid's-supper.  Luther  denied  that 
the  elements  were  changed  after  consecra- 
tion (as  implied  in  the  theory  of  transul«- 
stantiation).  and  therefore  taught  that  the 
bread  and  wine  indeed  remain,  but  that 
together  with  them  there  is  present  the 
substance  of  the  body  of  Christ,  which  is 
received  by  communicants. 

CONVOCATION  (Lat.  con  and  vocare, 
to  call),  is  an  assembly  of  the  bishops  aiul 
clergy  of  the  Church  of  England.  It  con- 
sists of  two  houses:  the  prelates  constitut- 
ing one,  and  deputies  of  the  inferior  clergy 
the  other.  It  is  subject  to  the  sovereign 
and  to  Parliament,  and  exists  in  but  little 
more  than  name  and  form,  although  great 
cilbrts  have  been  recently  made  to  relieve 
it  of  its  ilisabilities. 

COSMOGONY  (Gik.  Koa^o^,  world,  and 
yiyvoixaL,  to  come  into  being).  (1)  l'^'^- 
fcssed  historical  account  of  the  origin  of 
the  world,  as  the  IMosaic  Cosmogony  (I. 
113).  (2)  The  science  or  tJieory  of  the  ori- 
gin of  the  world.  The  different  cosmogo- 
nies may  be  comprehended  under  two 
classes:  "(«)  those  which  represent  the 
matter,  though  not  the  form,  of  the  world 
to  be  from  eternity;  {b)  those  Avhich  assign 
],oth  the  matter  and  form  of  the  world  to 
the  direct  agency  of  a  spiritual  cause. 
Cosmogony  must  be  distinguished  from 


Cosmology  and  Cosmography:  the  lirst 
stops  short  with  themes  of  origin  or  crea- 
tion; the  second  is  a  doctrine  of  the  uni- 
verse, its  structure  an<l  parts;  while  the 
third  is  a  description  of  the  figure  ami  tlis- 
tribution  of  the  universe,  anil  includes  as- 
tronomy, geography,  and  geology.  For 
the  Coarnological  Argument  for  the  exist- 
ence of  God,  see  1.  37. 

CREATIONISM,  the  doctrine  that 
only  the  body  is  begotten  of  the  parents, 
anil  that  the  soul  of  every  individual  is  an 
immediate  creation  of  God.  It  is  oi)i)osed 
to  Traducianisni,  the  commonly  received 
belief  that  the  soul  as  well  as  the  body  is 
transmitted  from  ])areuls  to  cliihl.  These 
tiieories  have  some  important  bearings  on 
the  iU)(!ti  ine  of  original  sin. 

CREDENDA,  a  Latin  word  signifying 
things  to  be  believed.   See  Agenda. 

CRITICISM,  BIBLICAL,  in  the 
broadest  sense,  is  that  de|)artment  of  sa- 
cred science  which  treats  not  only  of  the 
restoration  of  tlte  original  text  of  the 
Scriptures,  but  also  of  the  ])rinciples  of 
iiermeneutics  or  interpretation.  In  the 
stricter  sense,  sacred  criticism  occii])ies  it- 
self exclusively  with  the  text  of  the  llible. 
It  is  limited  to  those  principles  and  opera- 
tions which  enable  the  critic  to  detect  and 
remove  corruptions,  to  decnle  u])on  the 
genuineness  of  disputed  readings,  and  to 
obtain  as  nearly  as  possible  the  exact 
Avorils  of  inspiration.  There  are  but  three, 
or  almost  four,  sources  for 'determining 
the  questions  of  criticism:  (1)  MSS.  of  the 
Bible,  both  uncial  and  cursive;  (2)  aiicicnt 
versions;  (3)  citations;  in  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers;  and  (4j  critical  conjecture. 
Scrivener's  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of 
the  New  Testament  is  valiial)le,  and  Ham- 
mond's Textual  Criticisin  Applied  to  the 
Xeiv  Testament  is  an  excellent  small  work. 
The  best  texts  of  the  (ireck  Testament  are 
Tischendorf -s  eigiUh  edition,  and  AVcstcott 
and  Ilort's  recent  publication.  ISlinxy  of 
the  current  texts  are  wortliless  for  critical 
purposes. 

gRYPTO-CALVINISTS  (Gik.  Kpvn- 
rds,  secret,  hidden),  Lutherans,  mostly  in 
Saxony,  so-called  on  account  of  their  se- 
cret altachment  to  the  Calvinistic  view  of 
the  Lord's-supper.  The  controversy  raged 
from  1552  to  1574. 

CUDWORTH,  llalph  (I(il7-1G88),  an  em- 
inent English  divine  and  philosopher,  a 
representative  of  the  so-called  Cambridge 
Platonism,  took  his  M.A.  at  Cambri<lge, 
1(530;  became  master  of  Clare  Hall,  1(>44; 
Professor   of    Hebrew,    1(>43;   master  of 


16 


Glossarif. 


Christ  College,  aucl  prcbeudaiy  of 

(iloucester,  1G78.  His  reputation  rests 
chiefly  ou  his  True  Intellectual  System  of 
the  Universe,  which  is  a  defense  of  human 
liberty  and  of  Theism  against  Fatalism  and 
Atheism.  A  good  and  cheap  edition  is 
that  of  Andover  (1837,  two  vols.  8vo), 
-wliich  includes  the  other  published  writ- 
ings of  Cudworth. 

CYPRIAN  Kcir.  200-250),  Bishop  of  Car- 
thage, is  one  of  the  most  eminent  names  in 
early  Church  history,  and  a  notable  mar- 
tyr to  the  truth.  His  letters  to  two  Bishops 
of  Rome,  Cornelius  and  Stephen,  dealing 
with  many  points  of  Church  government 
and  discipline,  reveal  the  substantial 
equality  of  all  Christian  bishops  in  the 
lirst  half  of  the  third  century.  All  of 
them  received  the  name  of  "pope"  (papa), 
and  addressed  each  other  as  colleagues. 
He  may  be  rcgai-dcd  as  the  father  of  the 
system  Avhich  places  the  unity  of  the 
Church  in  the  episcopate.  "-In  his  view,'' 
says  Xeander,  "  the  Church  Avas  an  out- 
ward organism  founded  by  Christ,  of 
which  the  bishops  Avere  the  pillars;  .  .  . 
they  were  the  indispensal)le  links  for  con- 
necting the  Church  Avith  Christ.  Only 
through  thein  could  the  Holy  Spirit  be  im- 
parteil,  aiid  out  of  the  Church  no  one  could 
be  saved."   ^u,  

DAMASCENE.  See  John  of  Damas- 
cus. 

DAMNATION  (T.at.  damnare,  to  con- 
demn). In  theology  this  Avord  is  generally 
used  to  denote  the  everlasting  punishment 
of  the  wicked  in  the  future  state;  but  it  is 
not  ahvays  so  employed  in  the  Scriptures, 
e.  f/.,  IJoin.  xiii.  2,  "They  that  resist  shall 
receive  to  themselves  damnation,"  i.  c, 
condemnation;  1  Cor.  xi.  20,  "He  that  eat- 
eth  and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and 
ilrinketh  damnation  to  himself,"  i.  e.,  ex- 
poses himself  to  severe  temporal  judgment 
from  (jo<l,  and  to  the  censure  of  the  Avise  and 
good;  Uom.  xiv.  2.'],  "  He  that  doubteth  is 
damned  if  he  eat,"  i.  c,  is  condemned  both 
by  his  oAvn  conscience  antl  by  the  AA'Oi'd  of 
(iod.    (Sec  r.  S75-377.) 

DATUM  (Lat.  dare,  to  give),  that  Avhich 
is  given  or  granted,  as  a  position  from 
Avhicli  to  reason.  Thus  facts  are.  the  data 
f(n- observational  science,  axioms  for  math- 
ematics; and  the  conditions  of  the  under- 
standing and  first  truths  of  the  i-eason  are 
the  data  for  meta])hysics. 

DE  FACTO  and  DE  JURE,  tAVO  Latin 
])}irases  of  contrasted  meanings;  the  former 
IS  commonly  used  in  the  sense  of  actually 


or  really,  and  the  latter  in  the  sense  of 
rightfully  or  legally.  A  de  facto  govern- 
ment IS  one  actually  exercising  sovereignty 
over  a  country;  a  de  Jure  government  is 
one  legally  or  constitutionally,  but  deprived 
of  the  actual  exercise  of  power. 

DEIPARA  (Lat.  deus,  a  god,  and 
parere,  to  bring  forth),  mother  of  God,  a 
title  applied  to  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus, 
at  the  Council  of  Nica?a  and  since.  See 
Thcotokos.    (I.  197,  198,  200,  201.) 

DEISM  (Lat.  Deus,  God).  Etymolog- 
ically  Deism  is  identical  in  meaning  Avith 
the  Greek  derivative  Theism  (0e6?,  God); 
but  the  tAVO  Avords  have  long  been  used  Avith 
Avidely  difi'crent  meanings.  Deism  asserts 
the  sufliciencA"  of  natural  religion  in  opjjo- 
sition  to  positive  revelation,  and  accepts  the 
existence  of  God  as  a  truth  of  nature,  but 
usually  ilenics  that  he  has  any  immerliate 
concern  Avith  the  government  of  the  Avoiid. 
Theism  is  the  philosophic  explanation  of 
the  cre'ation  and  government  of  the  AA'orld 
ahvays  accepted  and  vindicated  by  Chris- 
tianity against  Pantheism,  Atheism,  Mate- 
l  ialism,  etc.  Deism  is  inconsistent  with 
Christianity;  Theism  is  one  of  its  funda- 
mental tniths.  Deism,  Avhich  flourished  in 
England  in  the  latter  part  of  the  sixteenth, 
through  the  seventeenth,  and  in  the  early 
part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  is  not  now 
a  prevailing  form  of  unbelief:  tliosc  Avho 
reject  Christianity  usually  plunge  into  Ag- 
nosticisni  or  ^laterialism.  Butler's  .4 naZ- 
ogy  is  recognized  by  all  parties  as  a  sufli- 
cient  lefutation  of  Deism,  and  has  rendered 
the  theory  philosophically  imtenable. 

DEMIURGE  (Grk.  ST,/u.tovp-y6s,  a  Avorker 
for  the  people)  Avas  the  name  borroAved 
from  ancient  philosoi)hy  by  the  Gnostics, 
and  applied  to  that  a?on  or  emanation  from 
the  supreme  God  avIio  created  the  Avorld, 
rebelled  against  the  Deity,  and  founded  the 
Jewish  dispensation.  See  Gnosticism.  (1. 
73.)  The  ailjective  demiurgic  is  often  a])- 
plied  by  theologians  to  the  six  days  of  cre- 
ation or  to  any  process  or  accompaniment 
of  creation.  (1,114.) 

DEMONSTRATION  (Lat.  demonstro, 
to  ])oint  out,  to  cause  to  see).  (1)  In  old 
Knglish  Avriters  this  Avord  Avas  used  to  sig- 
nify the  pointing  out  of  the  connection  be- 
tween a  conclusion  and  its  premises,  or  be- 
tween a  idienomenon  and  its  asserted 
cause;  (2)  it  now  denotes  a  necessary  con- 
sequence, and  is  synonymous  Avith  proof 
from  first  principles.  To  draAV  from  a  nec- 
essary and  univers;d  truth  consequences 
Avhich  necessarily  follow  is  demonstration. 
To  connect  a  truth  Avith  a  first  principle,  to 


Glossary. 


17 


show  that  it  is  this  priuciple  applied  or 
realized  in  a  particular  case,  is  to  ilenioii- 
strate.  The  result  is  science,  knowledge, 
certainty.  Those  general  truths  arrived  at 
by  induction  lu  the  science  of  observation 
are  certain  knowledge.  But  it  is  knowl- 
edge which  is  not  delinite  or  complete.  It 
may  admit  of  increase  or  modiilcation  by 
new  discoveries,  but  the  knowledge  which 
demonstration  gives  is  lixed  and  unaltera- 
ble. A  demonstration  may  therefore  be  de- 
fined as  a  reasoning  consisting  of  one  or 
more  arguments,  by  which  some  proposi- 
tion brought  into  question  is  shown  to  be 
contained  in  some  other  iiroposition  as- 
sumed, whose  truth  and  certainty  being 
evident  and  acknowledged,  the  proposition 
in  (luestion  must  also  be  admitted  as  cer- 
tain. 

DENS,  Peter  (1690-1775),  a  Roman  Cath- 
olic theologian,  whose  Theoloqia  Moralis 
et  Dogmatica  is  a  systematic  exposition,  in 
catechetical  form,  of  Roman  Catholic  ethics 
and  doctrine.  It  is  extensively  used  as  a 
text-book  in  Romish  seminaries  and  col- 
leges, but  owes  its  popularity  mostly  to  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  handy  compilation. 

DEONTOLOGY"  (Gik.  to  biov,  what  is 
due  or  binding,  proper  or  suitable;  Aoyos, 
discourse)  the  theory  of  duty.  The  etymo- 
logical sense  is  a  doctrine  of  duty;  yet  it 
was  specially  attractive  to  Bentham,  the 
expo\inder  of  Utilitarianism,  Avho  urged 
that  the  word  "  ought "  should  be  banished. 

Deiniologu,  or  that  which  is  proper,  has 
been  chosen  as  a  fitter  term  than  any 
other  -which  could  be  found  to  reiiresent. 
in  the  Held  of  morals,  the  principle  of  L'tili- 
/rtna?ij.sj?j,or  that-svhich  is  useful."  (Bent- 
ham,  Deontology ;  or^  the  Science  of  Mo- 
rality^ i.  34).  "The  term  deontology  ex- 
presses moral  science,  and  expresses  it 
Avell,  i)i  ecisely  because  it  signifies  the  sci- 
ence of  dnty,  and  contains  no  reference  to 
utility."  (Whewell,  Preface  to  Mackin- 
tosh's Prelim.  Dissert.^  p.  30.) 

DES  CARTES,  Ren6  (1596-1G50),  the 
universally  recognized  father  of  modern 
l)hilosophy,  began  -with  universal  doubt, 
but  found  it  impossible  to  reject  his  oft- 
quoted  eogito  ergo  s»»j,  •'•  I  think,  therefore 
I  am."  The  starting-point  of  philosophy 
since  his  time  has  been  the  Kgo,  or  personal 
self-consciousness.  For  the  Cartesian  ar- 
gument for  the  existence  of  God,  see  I.  54, 
5.5,  foot-note. 

DESIGN  (Lat.  dcsigno^  to  mark  out), 
adaptation  of  means  to  ends.  The  cvi- 
tlence  of  design  consists  in  the  marks  found 
in  objects  or  events,  of  adaptation  to  the 


attainment  of  definite  results.  A  philo- 
sophic theory  of  such  evidence  is  named 
Teleology  (tcAos,  end,  and  Ao-yos,  discourse), 
the  theory  of  ends,  awkwardly  named 
''final  causes."    See  Teleology. 

DESTRUCTIONISTS,  a  denomina- 
tion of  Christians  who  believe  that  the  final 
punishment  threatened  in  the  gospel  to 
the  wicked  and  impenitent  consists  not  in 
eternal  misery,  but  iii  a  total  extinction  of 
being;  and  that  the  sentence  of  annihila- 
tion shall  be  executed  with  more  or  less 
previous  torment,  in  proportion  to  the 
greater  or  less  guilt  of  the  criminal.  They 
are  also  called  Annihilationists.  (1. 381-384.) 

DISPENSATION  (Lat.  dispensatio, 
management,  administration)  ha-s  in  the- 
ology three  quite  distinct  uses:  (1)  the  gi-eat 
eras  in  the  histoi-y  of  redemption  marked 
by  distinct  difl'erences  in  the  divine  admin- 
istration, as  the  Patriarchal.,  Mosaic,  and 
Christian  dispensations— the  administra- 
tion of  the  Chi'istian  Church  since  the  Day 
of  Pentecost  is  recognized  as,  by  eminence, 
the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  (I.  401-405) ; 
(?)  a  dis])ensation  of  Providence  is  any  par- 
ticular or  unusual  mode  of  visible  treat- 
ment to  which  mankind,  nations,  or  indi- 
viduals are  subjected  under  the  divine 
government;  (3)  disijensation  is  used  in 
ecclesiastical  law  to  signify  a  power  grant- 
ed by  the  Church  to  do  that  -which  is  other- 
wise prohibited,  or  to  leave  undone  that 
which  is  othei'Avise  commanded.  It  figures 
largely  in  Romish  casuistry. 

DOCET-SE  (Grk.  fioKfjTat,  from  5o/ceiV,  to 
seem),  also  called  Phantastists,  a  sect  of 
ancient  Gnostic  heretics  who  denied  that 
Christ  was  a  man  in  any  thing  more  than 
appearance.  Ilis  humanity  was  regarded 
as  ilestitute  of  reality;  it  was  a  mere  ap- 
parition or  ])liantasm.    (I.  204.) 

DOGMA  (Grk.  56-y(ua,  opinion,  decree). 
In  the  Scriptures  the  Greek  Avord  no- 
where means  doctrine.  Jn  Eph.  li.  15  and 
Col.  ii.  14  it  denotes  Jewish  ordinances. 
In  Luke  ii.  1,  Acts  xvi.  1,  and  elsewhere,  it 
refers  to  the  decrees  of  Roman  emperors. 
In  theology  the  word  denotes  a  received  or 
established  doctrine  of  Christianity;  par- 
ticularly a  fundamental  tenet  authorita- 
tively defined  and  unanimously  recog- 
nized, as  the  dogma  of  the  Trinity,  the 
dogma  of  the  Atonement,  etc.  Neither  the 
noun  nor  the  adjective  (dogmatic)  carries 
witli  it  any  opprobrious  sense,  though  oft- 
en so  em])loycd  by  '*  advanced  thinkers.** 

DOGMATICS  (see  above),  that  de- 
partment of  sacred  science  which  deals 
■with  the  definition,  defense,  elucidation, 


18 


Glossary. 


and  proof  of  Christian  docti-ine;  divinity; 
systematic  theologj".   (I.  10-22.) 

DOMINICANS,  an  order  of  mendi- 
cant fi-iars  founded  by  St.  Dominic,  and 
i-ecognized  by  Innocent  III.  in  1215,  called 
Black  Friars  in  England,  and  Jacobins  in 
France.  Together  with  the  Franciscans, 
they  became  the  chief  representatives  of 
the  theological  science  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
occupied  a  large  number  of  theological 
chairs  at  the  universities,  and  became  the 
bitter  opponents  of  the  Franciscans. 
Thomas  Aquinas  "was  their  greatest  theo- 
logian, and  continues  their  standard  au- 
thority. In  theology  they  were  Augustin- 
ian,  or  predestinarian.  Besides  Aquinas, 
Albertus  Magnus,  Eccard,  Tauler,  Suso, 
and  Savonarola  may  be  mentioned  among 
their  great  worthies. 

DONATISTS,  named  for  their  leader, 
Donatus,  were  schismatics  of  Xorth  Africa 
in  the  early  part  of  the  fourth  century, 
who  held  puritanical  sentiments  similar  to 
those  of  the  Xovatians  (which  see).  Xean- 
der  maintains  that  both  the  Donatists  and 
their  opponents  confounded  the  visible 
with  the  invisible  Chui'ch,  and  placed  the 
predicates  of  purity  and  holiness  in  the 
former.  The  Donatists  made  catholicity 
depend  on  purity:  Augustin  made  purity 
depend  on  catholicity.   (See  11.  224.) 

DONNE,  Dr.  John  (1573-1G31),  Dean  of 
St.  Paul's,  and  one  of  the  most  eminent  of 
English  divines,  whose  sei-mons  constitute 
his  great  title  to  enduring  fame.  He  took 
orders  quite  late  in  life.  In  1610,  at  the 
command  of  James  I.,  he  prepared  a  trea- 
tise on  Supremacy  and  Allegiance.  He  Avas 
immediately  appointed  one  of  the  royal 
chaplains,  and  soon  admitted  D.D.  at 
Cambridge,  where  he  had  failed  to  take  a 
degi-ee  in  youth  because,  reared  a  Boman- 
ist,  he  or  his  parents  had  scruples  alx)ut 
taking  the  necessary  oaths.  Donne's  epis- 
tolary writings  are  models  of  their  kind. 
Some  of  his  poems  are  also  fine.  He  com- 
bined argumentative  power  with  aptness 
for  illustration  and  artistic  skill. 

DOTJAY  VERSION.  See  Rhemish 
Testament. 

DUALISM  (Lat.  dualis,  from  duo, 
two).  (1)  Philosophically,  Dualism  main- 
tains the  essential  antithesis  of  matter  and 
mind  in  opposition  to  Materialism  on  the 
one  hand  and  Idealism  on  the  other.  It"is 
frequently  called  natural  dualism  or  real- 
ism. (See  Hamilton's  Metaphysics.)  (2) 
Theologically,  Dualism  maintains  a  two- 
fold source  of  the  world  in  ojiposition  to 
Monotheism.    The  system  was  held  by  ; 


Zoroaster  and  the  Magi,  who  taught  the 
existence  of  a  good  principle  or  deity 
(Onnuzd),  and  of  an  evil  (Ahrimau).  It 
would  appear,  however,  that  Zoroaster 
recognized  besides  tliese  a  supreme  deity— 
Akerenes— and  that  only  the  Magian  sect 
held  naked  and  undisguised  Dualism. 
These  views  were  revived  in  the  second 
century  by  the  Gnostics,  and  in  the  third 
by  Manes,  whose  followers  were  called 
Manicheans.  (I.  73.)  For  a  consideration 
of  the  Dualism  suggested  by  Mr.  J.  S. 
Mill,  see  I.  131. 

DYNAMICAIi  'Grk.  StJ^a/xis,  power), 
pertaining  to  power  as  efficient.  The* 
"moral  dynamic"  is  reigning  motive 
force  adequate  to  secure  uniform  fulfill- 
ment of  moral  law.  For  dynamical  inspi- 
ration, miracle,  and  the  use  of  Svyap-i^  in 
the  Scriptures,  see  I.  404-472. 

EBIONITES  (Heb.  ebjonim,  the  poor), 
a  sect  of  Jewish  Christians,  in  the  first  ages 
of  the  Church,  who  combined  Judaism  with 
Christianity,  rejected  much  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  were  accounted  heretics  by 
the  early  Fathers. 

ECCLESIOLOGY  (Grk.  €<c»cAr,<Tta,  as- 
sembly, Church,  and  Aoyos),  the  department 
of  theology  which  expounds  the  teacliings 
of  Scripture  concerning  the  Church,  its 
ministiy  and  sacraments.  (I.  28,  II.  211- 
494.) 

ECIiECTICISM  (Grk.  Uxiyuv,  to 
choose), the  spirit  and  system,  lihilosoplucal 
or  theological,  which  aims  to  reach  the 
truth  by  selecting  from  existing  teachings 
what  appear  to  be  their  true  elements. 
Cicero,  among  the  Romans,  and  Cousin,  in 
modern  times,  are  eminent  rei)resentativcs 
of  philosophical  eclecticism. 

ECONOMICAL  PROCESSION.  See 
Procession. 

ECONOMICS  (Grk.  o7ko?,  house,  fo/Ao?, 
law),  the  science  of  those  laws  which  pro- 
vide for  increase  of  comfort  as  involved  in 
the  disti-ibution  and  saving  of  Avhat  is  pro- 
duced; political  economy;  economics  con- 
cerns itself  with  the  complicate<l  inquiries 
as  to  profit  and  loss  in  production,  distri- 
bution, and  exchangeof  ])roporty  or  wealth. 

ECSTASY  (Grk.  cko-too-is,  a  standing 
out  of),  transport  of  soul  in  a  high  state  of 
intellectual  or  emotional  excitement,  as  if 
one  were  out  of  the  body  or  "beside  him- 
self." 

EFFICIENT  CAUSE.    See  Cause. 

EGOISM  (Lat.  i:f/o,  I),  the  theory  that 
self-existence  is  the  only  certainly  known 
fact,  idealism;  in  Ethics,  Egoism  denotes 


Glossary. 


19 


the  theory  that  all  human  impulses  are  es- 
beutially  self-regardiug.  It  is  opposed,  to 
Altruism,  which  see. 

ENCYCLOP-ffiDIA  (Grk.  eyKVKkLOi  nai- 
fiei'a,  circle  oi  instruction),  the  circle  of  sci- 
ences; a  general  survey  of  human  knowl- 
edge. Theological  Encyclopiedia  is  a  view 
of  the  several  branches  of  theology,  with  a 
summary  of  what  has  been  accomplished  in 
each.    (I.  19,  foot-note.) 

EMANATION  iLat.  emanare,  to  floAv  j 
from).    Acconling  to  several  Oriental  phi-  j 
losophies  and  religions  all  the  beings  of  the 
univei'se  have  proceeded  from  the  Deity.  In 
so  far  as  it  identilies  the  world  with  God 
it  is  pantheistic. 

EMPIRICISM  (Grk.  eixneipCa,  experi- 
ence), a  theory  of  (1)  knowledge,  or  of  (2) 
l)ractice,  which  regards  expei'ience  as  the 
sole  criterion  of  truth.  Its  theory  of 
knowledge  derives  all  from  sensation;  its 
ethics  depends  wholly  upon  association  of 
feelings.  Empiricism,  of  course,  rejects  all 
knowledge  a  priori.  The  founder  of  mod- 
ern empiricism  is  John  Locke  (1632-1704). 

ENCRATITES  (Grk.  eVparij?,  moder- 
ate), followers  of  Tatian  in  the  second  cent- 
ury. The  Tatianists  Avere  calletl  Encra- 
tites,  or  Continents,  because  they  abstained 
from  the  use  of  wine,  meat,  and  marriage. 

EPICUREANISM,  the  i>hilosophy  of 
Epicurus,  Avho  came  to  Athens  about  300 
B.C.  His  name  is  especially  associated 
with  the  doctrine  that  pleasure  is  the  chief 
good.  His  school  was  thus  in  contrast  Avith 
that  of  tlie  Stoics,  these  two  being  histor- 
ically the  parting  of  two  streams  of  thought, 
represented  still  in  the  utilitarian  and 
rational  theories  of  morals.  Epicnrus, 
hoAvever,  guarded  against  such  an  inter- 
pretation of  his  doctrine  as  Avould  imply 
that  the  pleasure  of  the  debauchee  is  the 
highest  good,  and  boasted  that  Avith  a  little 
barley-bread  and  Avater  he  could  rival  Zeus 
in  happiness.  He  Avould  even  aflirm  that 
pleasure  and  happiness  Avere  most  inti- 
mately connected  Avith  virtue,  that  they 
are  in  fact  inseparable,  and  that  there  can 
be  no  agreeable  life  Avithout  virtue,  and  no 
virtue  Avithout  an  agreeable  life. 

EPIPHANY  (Grk.  e;rc'  and  </)a(,Veif,  to 

shoAV  forth).  (1)  The  term  is  used  general- 
ly to  designate  any  appearance  of  God  to 
men,  as  in  the  form  of  men  or  angels  in  the 
Old  Testament.  Theologians  also  speak  of 
the  epiplianies  or  manifestations  of  the 
Risen  Kcdecmcr.  (2)  The  name  Avas  iirst 
applied  to  the  feast  of  the  nativity  of  Christ, 
as  God  manifest  in  the  ilesh;  but  since  the 
fourth  century  this  festival  has  been  re- 


garded as  commemorative  of  the  appear- 
ance of  the  infant  Saviour  to  the  Magi,  or, 
as  some  say,  of  the  appearance  of  the  Star 
in  the  East,   Epiphany  occurs  January  6th. 

EPISTEMOLOGY  (Grk,  Adyo.T^s  ima- 
the  science  of  knoAvledge),  the  doc- 
trine or  theory  of  knoAvledge,  just  as  ontol- 
ogy is  the  theory  of  being. 

ERASTIANISM,  the  theory  which 
considers  the  government  of  the  Church  as 
I)ropcrly  vested  in  the  civil  magistrate. 
This  is  the  popular  vicAV  of  the  teachings  of 
Erastus  (1524-1583),  but  it  is  an  exaggera- 
tion, if  not  a  distortion.  The  peculiarity  of 
his  teaching  lay  in  his  refusing  the  right  of 
excommunication  to  the  C  hristian  Church. 
The  term  has  passed  into  theology,  how- 
ever, Avith  the  meaning  first  stated,  and 
Avill  doubtless  retain  it. 

ESCHATOLOGY  (Grk,  eo-xaro?,  last, 
and  Ad-yo?,  doctrine),  the  doctrine  of  the  last 
things :  death,  intermediate  state,  rcsuiTcc- 
tion,  judgment,  heaven,  and  hell.  (I.  21, 27, 
331-384.) 

ESOTERIC  opposed  to  EXOTERIC 

(Grk.  ecraj0ei/,  Avithin;  e^utOev,  Avitliout).  (1) 

Secret  or  hidden  doctrine,  communicated 
only  to  the  initiated  or  to  those  advanced 
and  cai)able  of  receiving  it,  exoteric  doc- 
trine being  publicly  taught  to  all  Avho  Avish 
to  hear,  (2)  Scientilic  teaching  in  contrast 
Avith  more  popular,  Avhich  is  exoteric.  (I. 
72,) 

ESSENES,  Avith  the  Tharisces  and 
Sadduooes,  constituted  the  three  JcAvish 
sects  in  the  time  of  our  Lord.  They  Avere 
mystical  ascetics,  Avho  combined  foreign 
elements,  especially  Oriental  and  Greek, 
Avith  JcAvish  doctrines  and  peculiar  viCAVs 
and  practices  of  their  OAvn.  They  l  ejected 
most  of  the  JcAvish  sacrifices,  and  made 
their  felloAvship  exclusive,  admission  be- 
ing gi'anted  after  a  probation  of  three 
years.  Thilo  and  Josephus  are  the  princi- 
pal sources  Avhence  Ave  deriA  C  our  knowl- 
edge of  them.  They  are  not  mentioned  in 
the  New  Testament. 

ESTIUS,  Gulielmus  (1542-1613),  an  emi- 
nent Koman  Catholic  theologian,  for  many 
years  professor  of  divinity  in  LouA'ain  and 
Douay,  and  from  1603  chancellor  at  Donay. 
lie  AA'as  held  in  great  repute  for  learning 
and  piety.  Benedict  XIV.  named  him 
Doctor  Fundalissimits.  His  Commentary 
on  the  Epistles  is  extolled  alike  by  Boman- 
ists  and  Protestants.    (TI.  411.) 

ETERNITY  (Lat.  ceternilas,  unending 
duration),  infinite  duration,  AA'ithout  begin- 
ning and  Avithout  end,  characteristic  of  the 
divine  exjjgtencc.  The  schoolmen  spoke  of 


20 


Glossary. 


eternity  a  parte  ante  and  a  parte  post 
(which  see >  For  the  doctrine  of  the 
"Eternal  Now,"  see  I.  77,  78,  foot-note. 

ETHICS,  or  IMoral  Philosophy,  is  the 
systematic  treatment  of  the  right  and  the 
dutiful  in  human  conduct.  According  to 
Kant  it  is  a  philosophy  of  "the  laws  of 
freedom"  in  contrast  with  "the  laws  of 
nature."  According  to  its  etymology 
{■!]9iK0i,  from  cflos,  custom)  the  science  treats 
of  practice  as  tested  by  moral  law.  Chris- 
tian ethics  is  the  orderly  exposition  of  the 
principles  of  morality  contained  in  revela- 
tion, particularly  the  ethical  teaching  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles.  From  the  very 
nature  of  Christianity,  as  containing  a 
complete  account  of  human  duty.  Christian 
ethics  must  be  broader  and  deeper  than  all 
human  philosophies  which  relate  to  it.  (II. 
495-519.) 

ETJCHARIST  (Grk.  evxapLarCa,  thanks- 
giving), a  name  given  to  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's-supper,  indicative  of  the  grati- 
tude of  Christian  hearts  for  God's  gift  of 
his  Son,  commemorated  in  this  saci-ament. 

EUCHOLOGION  (Grk.  eyxo^^yiov, 
prayer-book),  the  common  name  of  the 
liturgical  books  of  the  Greek  Church,  con- 
taining the  services  for  the  sacraments, 
conferring  of  orders,  and  other  religious 
offices.  See  Xeale,  History  of  the  Holy 
Eastern  Churchy  and  Stanley's  Eastern 
Church. 

EXJD^MONISM  (Grk.  ev5ai/«,ovia, 
happiness),  that  system  of  ethics  which 
makes  happiness  the  test  of  rectitude.  On 
the  common  basis  of  the  agreeable,  there 
are  two  theories:  (1)  the  Hedonistic  (Grk. 
riSovri,  pleasure),  which  makes  personal 
pleasure  the  law  of  life,  and  is  known  as 
Egoistic  Hedonism ;  (2)  the  Eudtemonistic, 
which  makes  general  happiness  the  test, 
termed  also  Altruistic  Iledmiism  and  Util- 
itarianism, its  maxim  being  the  greatest 
happiness  of  the  greatest  number.  See 
Altruism  and  Egoism. 

EUTYCHIANISM,  a  heresy  named 
for  Eutyches,  who  flourished  in  the  early 
part  of  the  fifth  century.  The  doctrine  is 
that  of  Monophysitism,  that  there  was  in 
Christ  only  one  nature,  that  of  the  incar- 
nate AVord,  his  human  nature  having  been 
absorbed  by  his  divine. 

EVIIi  is  the  negation  or  the  contraiy  of 
good.  It  is  (1)  physical,  i2)  moral,  (3)  met- 
aphysical. In  Its  physical  application,  it 
is  that  which  injures;  in  its  ethical,  that 
which  violates  moral  law;  in  its  metaphys- 
ical, imperfection  or  lack  of  i)ower.  Phys- 
ical evil  consists  in  pain  or  suflfering.  3Ior- 


al  evil  originates  in  the  will  of  the  agent, 
who  could  not  have  been  capable  of  moral 
good  Avithout  being  liable  to  moral  evil,  a 
power  to  do  right  being,  ex  necessitate  reU 
a  power  to  do  wrong.  Metaphysical  evil 
is  the  absence  or  defect  of  powers  and  ca- 
pacities, r.'jd  the  consequent  want  of  the 
higher  attainment  which  might  have  fol- 
lowed the  full  and  perfect  possession  of 
them.  It  arises  from  the  necessarily  lim- 
ited nature  of  all  created  beings.  The 
problem  of  Theodicy  is  to  reconcile  phys- 
ical, moral,  and  metaphysical  evil  with  the 
goodness,  power,  and  wisdom  of  God,  and 
thus  vindicate  the  divine  glory.  Leibnitz 
(1&1G-171G)  undertook  this  m  his  Theodicte. 
(I.  122-UG.) 

EVIIi,  ORIGIN  OF.  The  theories 
concerning  the  origin  of  evil  have  been 
very  varied:  (1)  the  doctrine  of  pre-exist- 
ence,  or  that  the  evils  we  are  liere  suffering 
are  puniriiments  or  expiations  of  moral  de- 
linquencies in  a  former  state  of  existence; 
(2)  the  doctrine  of  the  Manicheans,  which 
supposes  two  co-eternal  and  independent 
agencies,  the  one  the  author  of  good,  and 
the  other  of  evil;  (3)  the  doctrine  of  Opti- 
mism, that  evil  is  part  of  a  system  con- 
ducted by  almighty  power,  under  the  di- 
rection of  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness 
(Stewart,  Active  and  Moral  Powers^  bk. 
iii.  ch.  iii.  sec.  1);  (4)  the  doctrine  of  hu- 
man liberty;  (5)  the  doctrine  of  Pantheism, 
that  evil  is  mere  negation,  the  necessary 
concomitant  of  finite  existence  (Spinoza 
and  Hegel);  (6)  the  doctrine  of  Pessimism, 
that  existence  as  such  is  necessarily  evil 
(Schopenhauer  and  Yon  Hartmann).  Sen- 
eca, JNIalebranche,  Fcn6lon,  Clarke,  Leib- 
nitz, King,  and  Julius  IMiillcr  are  classical 
Avriters  on  this  subject. 

EVOLUTION  (Lat.  evolvere^  to  un- 
fold), a  scientific  doctrine  AvhiT;h  teaches 
the  progress  of  being  l;y  development  from 
within,  under  external  conditions  condu- 
cive to  advance.  It  is  often  called  l)ar- 
Avinism,  from  Charles  Darwin,  the  greatest 
modern  expounder  of  the  doctrine. 

EXCOMMUNICATION  (Lat.  ex- 
communieare,  to  eject  from  the  commu- 
nity) is  expulsion  from  the  communion  of 
the  Church,  involving  deprivation  of  all 
the  rights  and  pi  ivileges  of  membership. 

EXEGETICS,  or  Exegctical  Theology, 
(Grk.  ef,  out,  and  r}yei<rOai,  to  guide),  that 
department  of  sacred  science  which  deter- 
mines with  precision,  according  to  the 
received  rules  of  grammatical  and  histor- 
ical interi)retation,  the  exact  meaning  of 
the  text  of  Kevelation.  Ilermeneutics  is 


Glossary. 


21 


the  science  wixich  treats  of  the  principles 
and  laws  of  interpretation;  Exegetics  is 
the  actual  use  of  these  principles.  The 
names  are  often  employeii  synonymously. 

(1. 20, 21.: 

EX  OPERE  OPERATO  and  EX 
OPEBE  OPERANTIS  are  two  con- 
trasted Latin  pluases  meaning,  literally, 
from  the  icork  ivrought  and  from  the  tvark 
cf  the  doer,  ctnd  much  employed  in  contro- 
versies concerning  the  grace  of  the  sacra- 
ments. Dens  says  to  cause  grace  ex  opere 
operantis  is  to  cause  it  from  the  merit  of 
the  operator,  whether  minister  or  receiver; 
to  cause  grace  ex  opcre  opcrato  is  to  cause 
it,  not  from  the  merits  of  the  minister  or  the 
receiver,  but  from  the  power  of  the  sacra- 
ment in  effecting  that  which  it  signifies. 
(II.  S47.) 

EXORCIST  (Grk.  efop/ct'^etv,  to  expel  by 
adjuring),  an  ecclesiastic  whose  ostensible 
duty  it  was  to  exi)el  evil  spirits  by  certain 
forms  of  adjuration.  A  class  cf  persons 
was  ordainetl  to  this  function  possibly  as 
early  as  the  third  century.  Bishops  and 
priests  are  now  the  usual  exorcists  of  the 
Romish  Church. 

EXOTERIC.   See  Esoteric. 

EAMIliISTS,  a  sect  of  Baptists  who 
arose  in  Holland  in  1.345.  Their  leader, 
Henry  Nicholas,  of  Westphalia,  said  he  had 
a  commission  from  heaven  to  teach  that 
jloctrines  and  modes  of  worship  are  of  no 
moment,  the  essence  of  religion  consisting 
only  in  feelings  of  love.  Uence  they  are 
called  the  family  of  love.  They  spread  into 
England,  and  proceded  to  blasphemous 
lengths.  Their  books  were  ordered  to  be 
burned  in  Octobei-,  15S0.  In  IGOl  they  pre- 
sented a  petition  to  James  I.  to  clear  them- 
selves of  charges  ])referred  against  them. 
They  became  extinct  about  1G4j.    (II.  507.) 

FEDERAL  THEOLOGY  (Lat.  foccl- 
eralis,  from  focdus,  a  compjict),  a  method  of 
stating  divine  truth,  according  to  which  all 
the  doctrines  of  religion  are  arranged  under 
the  heads  of  certain  covenants  God  has 
made  with  men.  The  fundamental  idea  of 
the  system  is  tliat  man  has  always  been  in 
covenant  relations  with  God,  (1)  that  of 
nature  or  of  works,  and  (2)  that  of  gi-ace. 

FETICHISM,  the  term  applied  to-  the 
earliest  and  lowest  forms  of  Poluthcism. 
The  Portuguese  ca"l  tb?  oljects  worshiped 
by  the  negroes  of  Africa  fctisso,  bewitched 
or  possessed  by  fairies.  It  is  described  as 
consisting  in  the  ascription  of  life  and  in- 
telligence essentially  analogous  to  our  own 
to  everj  existing  object,  of  whatever  kind, 


whether  organic  or  inorganic,  natural  or 
artificial  (Cointe,  Phil.  Positive). 

FILIOQ,UE,  a  Latin  word  meaning  o?irf 
from  tlie  son.  The  Western  Church,  includ- 
ing the  Latins  and  the  Protestants,  holds 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeds  from  both  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  while  the  Eastei-n  or 
Greek  Church  holds  that  the  Spii  it  proceeds 
only  from  the  Father,  (See  I.  33,  also  the 
foot-note.)  At  the  second  Dollinger  Union 
Conference  between  Old  Catholics  (those 
who  left  the  Eoman  Church  on  account  of 
the  Vatican  decrees  of  1870},  Orientals 
(Greek  Christians),  and  Anglo-Catholics 
'^High-churchmen  of  the  English  Establish - 
ment\  held  at  Bonn,  Prussia,  August  10-16, 
1875,  an  agreement  was  reached  essentially 
conceding  the  Gi  eek  position,  though  this 
settlement  still  awaits  the  official  sanction 
of  the  C  hurches  interested.  See  Schaff 's 
Creeds  of  Christendom,  Vol,  II,.  pp.  552  554, 

FINAL  CAUSE,  the  end  of  action  as 
contemplated  by  an  intelligent  agent.  The 
word  "Cause"  is  inappropriately  used  in 
this  case,  as  equivalent  to  end  {Te'Ao?>,  but 
has  obtained  general  currency.  See  I.  62, 
foot-note.  It  is  here  equivalent  to  purpose, 
or  deliberately  preferred  end,  which  sup- 
plies the  reason  for  acting.  This  usage 
seems  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the 
purpose  of  the  agent  is  connected  with  the 
tiiie  motive  for  acting.  As  purpose  and 
end  are  correlative,  their  harmony  in  nat- 
ure and  separation  in  time  are  indicated  by 
the  phrace  "final  cause."  The  end  con- 
templr.ted  is  naturally  described  as  design. 
Thus  wlicn  applied  to  the  universe  as  re- 
lated to  the  First  Cause,  the  argument  from 
design  is  an  argument  as  to  final  causes, 
inasmuch  as  the  purpose  of  the  Intelligent 
First  Cause  may  be  interpreted  by  the 
rational  explanation  of  existence.  See 
Cause,  Design,  and  Teleology. 

FIVE  POINTS,  of  the  "  quinquartic- 
ular  controversy,"  are  the  questions  in  dis- 
pute betAveen  Calvinists  and  Arminians, 
Calvinists  holding  (1,  Particular  Election, 
(2)  Particular  Bcdemption,  (3;  Moral  Ina- 
bility, (1)  Irresistible  Grace;  and  (o"i  Final 
Perseverance.  See  Calvinism  and  Armin- 
ianism. 

FORCE.  (1)  Energy  or  power  capable 
of  moving  objects,  or  effecting  some  change 
in  the  relation  of  things.  For  this  the  term 
"energy  "is  now  commonly  reserved.  (2) 
The  measure  of  "energy"  acting  in  given 
circumstances.  Accoi-ding  to  Leibnitz,  by 
whom  the  term  force  was  introduced  into 
modern  philosophy,  no  substance  is  alto- 
gether passive.  The  two  notions,  force  and 


22 


Glossary, 


substance,  are  inseparable;  for  you  can  not 
think  of  action  without  a  being,  nor  of  a  be-  | 
lag  without  activity.  A  substance  eutii-ely 
passive  is  a  contradictory  idea.  In  like 
manner  Boscovich  maintained  that  the  ulti- 
mate particles  of  matter  are  merely  centers 
of  forces,  indivisible  and  unextended  points 
endowed  with  the  forces  of  attraction  and 
repulsion.    (I.  110.) 

FRANCISCANS,  the  order  founded 
by  '*  St.  Francis  "  of  Assisi,  in  1209,  distin- 
guished by  the  vow  of  absolute  poverty. 
The  monks  were  obliged  to  preach  and  beg. 
They  increased  very  rapidly,  and  numbered 
in  their  ranks  many  learned  men,  among 
them  Roger  Bacon  (1214-1292).  They  were 
great  advocates  of  the  immaculate  concep- 
tion of  the  Virgin  against  the  Dominicans 
(which  see).  In  process  of  time  their  mon- 
asteries were  allowed  to  hold  property,  but 
this  abandonment  of  the  primitiA'e  rule  led 
to  schism  in  the  order.  Their  theology  and 
philosophy  were  those  of  the  Scotists. 

GABRIEL),  one  of  the  principal  angels 
of  heaven.  He  was  sent  to  the  Prophet 
Daniel,  to  explain  to  him  the  visions  of  the 
ram  and  goat,  and  the  mystery  of  the  sev- 
enty weeks,  which  had  been  revealed  to 
him.  (Dan.  viii.  15;  ix.  21;  xi.  l,etc.)  The 
same  angel  was  sent  to  Zechariah,  to  de- 
clare to  him  the  fixture  birth  of  John  the 
Baptist.  (Luke  i.  11,  etc.)  Six  months  after 
this  he  appeared  to  a  virgin,  whose  name 
Avas  Mary,  of  the  city  of  Xazareth,  as  relat- 
ed in  Luke  i.  26,  etc.    (I.  238,  289.) 

GENUINE,  a  term  applied  to  docu- 
mentary evidence.  A  document  is  said  to 
be  (yc?/ Wine  when  its  authorship  cannot  be 
disputed,  or  when  the  hypothesis  of  fraud 
or  fabrication  cannot  be  maintained.  (I. 
423-423.)    iiee  Authenticity. 

GLORIA  IN  EXCELSIS,  Glory  to 
God  in  the  Highest.  The  introduction  of 
this  doxology  into  the  service  of  the  Church 
is  attributed  to  Telesphorus,  Bishop  of 
Rome,  A.D.  126.  It  appears  in  the  Ai^ostol- 
ical  Constitutions  in  nearly  the  same  form 
as  that  in  our  Communion  Service. 

GLORIA  PATRI,  Glory  to  the  Father, 
etc.  Almost  all  the  early  Fathers  had  their 
own  doxologies;  but  at  the  rise  of  the  Arian 
heresy  the  standing  form  ran  thus :  Glory 
be  to  the  Father,  and  to  the  Son,  and  to  the 
Holy  Ghost;"  to  which  the  Latin  Church 
soon  added',  "As  it  was  in  the  beginning,  is 
now,  and  ever  shall  be,  Avorld  without  end. 
Amen."    (II.  28.S.) 

GNOSTICISM  (Grk.yvia-if.knoAvledge, 
as  distinct  from  ttiotis,  faith),  a  general 


name  for  the  speculation  of  the  first  and 
I  second  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  which 
resulted  from  the  attempt  to  advance  from 
faith  to  knowledge  under  the  Christian  sys- 
tem. The  object  was  to  develop  a  Christian 
philosophy.  In  this  speculation,  the  Jew- 
ish Christians  and  the  Alexandrian  had  a 
conspicuous  share.  This  speculation  was 
concerned  largely  with  supra-mundane  ex- 
istence. It  resorted  to  allegorical  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture,  and  was  in  some  of  its 
forms  largely  influenced  by  Platonic 
thought.  The  theories  included  iinder  the 
general  name  are  mystic  in  fonn,  working 
out  schemes  of  existence  on  the  hypothesis 
of  ^ons,  occupying  an  intermediate  posi- 
tion between  the  unsearchable  One  and  the 
universe.  These  ^Eons  become  the  active 
agents  in  the  origin  and  government  of  the 
world.  After  the  authors  of  Clementines 
and  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  the  most  im- 
portant names  are  Cerinthus,  Saturninus, 
Carpocrates,  Basilides,  and  Valentinus. 

GREEK  CHURCH,  the  name  usually 
given  to  the  largest  branch  of  the  Oriental 
or  Eastern  Churches.  It  comprehends  all 
those  Christians  following  the  Greek  or  the 
Grajco-Slavonian  rite,  who  receive  the  first 
seven  general  councils,  but  reject  the  au- 
thority of  the  Roman  Pontiff  and  the  later 
councils  Ol  the  AVestern  Church.  The  Church 
calls  itself  the"  Holy  Orthodox  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church."  The  Greek  Church  has 
not,  like  the  Roman,  one  head,  but  consists 
of  eleven  difi'erent  gi-oups,  which  in  point 
of  administration  are  independent  of  each 
other,  though  they  fully  agi'ce  in  point  of 
doctrine.  See  Stanley's  History  of  the 
Eadern  Church. 

GREGORIANS,  a  title  sometimes  giv- 
en to  the  Armenian  Christians,  derived 
from  the  name  of  the  first  Bishop  of  Ar- 
menia and  founder  of  Christianity  in  that 
country.   (II.  286.) 

GREGORY  NAZIANZEN  (323-389), 
surnamed  the  theologian,  one  of  the  gi'eat- 
est  of  the  Greek  Fathers,  was  of  finished 
classical  education.  At  Athens  he  had  for 
fellow-students  Basil  the  Great  and  Julian 
the  Apostate.  The  Church  of  Constanti- 
nople had  been  for  forty  years  a  prey  to 
Arianism  when  Gregoiy  Avas  chosen,  about 
the  year  378,  to  bring  it  back  to  orthodoxy. 
The  little  congregation,  gathering  first  in  a 
private  house,  swelled  until  it  filled  a  mag- 
nificent Church,  called  Anastasia;  and, 
upon  the  coming  of  the  Emperor  Theodosius, 
Gregory  was  appointed  Archbishop.  He 
soon  resigned  from  this  post,  and  spent  his 
remaining  days  in  retirement.   He  is  one 


Glossary. 


23 


of  the  most  polished  of  the  fourth  century 
writers,  ranking  after  Chrysostom  and 
Basil.  Theologian,  poet,  orator,  bishop,  he 
took  high  rank  as  each;  but  his  superlative 
merit  was  as  an  orator.  A  severe  critic 
might  show  some  passages  of  declamation 
and  bombast,  but  these  were  the  faults  of 
his  time. 

GREGORY  OF  NYSSA  (332-400),  a 
father  of  the  Eastern  Church,  Avas  a  younger 
brother  of  Basil,  who  consecrated  him  to 
the  see  of  Nyssa  against  his  will  in  372.  His 
theology  shows  independent  and  original 
thou:ght,  but  contains  many  of  the  ideas  of 
Origen.  He  maintained  the  Xicene  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  the  doctrine  of  re- 
demption, the  freedom  of  the  will,  faith  as 
the  subjective,  and  the  sacraments  as  the 
objective,  means  of  grace. 

HADES  (Grk.  oSt}?,  usually  derived 
from  a  priv.,  and  iBcLv  to  see,  but  the  aspi- 
rate makes  this  doubtful),  the  invisible 
world,  the  grave.   (I.  368-375.) 

HAGIOGRAPHA,  a  term  transferred 
from  the  Greek  meaning  Holy  Writings. 
The  name  is  used  to  designate  the  third  di- 
vision of  the  Old  Testament,  embracing 
Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job,  Daniel,  Ezra,  Xe- 
hemiah,  Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes, 
Canticles,  Esther,  and  Chronicles. 

HAGIOLATRY  (Grk.  iyios,  holy,  and 
Aarpeta,  worship),  the  worship  of  saints, 
particularly  as  taught  and  practiced  in  the 
Romish  Church.    (H.  272-286.) 

HAMARTIOLOGY  (Grk.  ijuaprJa,  sin, 
Adyos,  doctrine),  the  doctrine  of  sin;  that 
department  of  theology  Avhich  treats  of  the 
Fall  and  its  consequences  in  original  and 
actual  sin. 

HERESY  (Grk.  aipeo-t?,  from  aipew,  I 
"choose),  signifies  an  error  in  some  essential 
jjoint  of  Christian  faith,  publiclj'  avowed 
and  obstinately  maintainc;^!;  or,  according 
to  the  legal  definition,  Scnteniia  rcrum  cli- 
vinarum  humano  scnsu  excogitata^  palam 
tlocta^  ct  pcrtinacitcr  dcfensa:  An  opinion 
of  divine  things  invented  by  human  reason, 
openly  taught,  and  obstinately  defended. 

HERMENEUTICS  (Grk.  ep/xe^euetv,  to 
interpret),  the  principles  and  rules  of  in- 
terpretation; the  science  of  scriptural  in- 
terpretation.  See  Excgetics. 

HERMIANI,  followers  of  Hermian  in 
the  second  century,  who  held  that  God  is 
corporeal,  and  that  Cbrist  left  his  body  in 
the  sun. 

HERMOGENIANS,  followers  of  Her- 
mogencs  in  the  second  century,  who  held 
that  matter  was  the  first  principle,  the 


fountain  of  all  evil,  out  of  Avhich  the  world, 
including  the  souls  of  men,  was  formed. 
He  was  opposed  by  Tertiillian. 

HETERODOX  (Grk.  eVepos,  other,  and 
So^a,  opinion)  is  applied  to  a  belief  which 
is  contrary  to  the  faith  or  doctrine  estab- 
lished and  received  in  the  Church.  The 
term  is  opposed  to  orthodox. 

HETEROUSIANS  (Grk.  eVepo?,  other, 
and  oucrta,  substance),  a  sect  of  extreme 
Arians,  followers  of  Aetius,  and  from  him 
often  called  Aetians.  They  held  that  the 
Son  Avas  of  another  substance,  diflerent 
from  that  of  the  Father,  and  not  of  a  like 
substance,  as  Avas  held  by  the  more  moder- 
ate Arians.  or  Homoiousidns  (Avhich  see). 

HEXAPLA  (Grk.  e^,  six,  and  ottAow,  I 
unfold),  the  Old  Testament  disposed  in  six 
columns,  containing  the  Hebrew  text  and 
divers  Greek  versions  of  it,  compiled  and 
published  by  Origen,  Avith  a  vicAV  of  secur- 
ing the  sacred  text  from  future  corrup- 
tions, and  to  con-ect  those  that  had  been 
already  introduced.  The  aiTangement  Avas 
by  columns  as  folloAVs:  (1)  HebrcAV  in  its 
proper  characters;  (2;  HebrcAV  in  Greek 
letters;  (3)  the  Greek  version  of  Aquila; 
(4)  that  of  Symmachus;  (5)  the  Septuagint; 
(G)  the  version  of  Theodotion.  X7nhapi)ily 
this  great  Avork,  Avhich  extended  to  nearly 
fifty  A-olumes,  Avas  never  transcribed,  and 
so  perished.  It  had  been  placed  in  the 
library  at  Caesarea,  and  Avas  still  much 
used  in  the  time  of  .Jerome.  It  Avas  prob- 
ably destroyed  by  the  Saracens,  A.D.  653. 

HIGH-CHURCH,  that  party  in  the 
Church  of  England,  and  its  offshoot  in  this 
country,  holding  appixximately  Romish 
principles  concerning  the  Church,  priest- 
hood, and  tradition.  They  are  sometimes 
called  Puseyites,  from  Dr.  Pusey,  one  of  the 
leaders  of  the  party  in  the  University  of  Ox- 
ford, and  Tractarians,  from  the  movement 
begun  in  Oxford  fifty  years  ago  by  John 
Henry  XcAvman,  who  afterward  Avent 
over  to  Rome,  and  has  been  made  a  cardi- 
nal in  that  communion.  .Another  common 
designation  of  the  party  is  xVnglo-Catho- 
lics. 

HOLINESS.  The  holiness  of  God  is 
his  moral  perfection,  comprehending  his 
goodness  and  mercy,  purity  and  justice, 
truth  and  faithfulness.  The  holiness  of 
man  consists  in  a  confonnity  to  the  nature 
and  will  of  God.  "  The  term  is  often  used 
to  indicate  hatred  of  evil.  It  sugg^jsts  the 
idea,  not  of  i)erfect  virtue,  but  of  that  pe- 
culiar affection  AvhercAvith  a  being  of  per- 
fect A'irtue  regards  moral  evil;  and  so 
much  indeed  is  this  the  precise  and  char- 


24: 


Glossary. 


acteiistic  import  of  the  tenn  that,  had 
there  been  no  evil,  either  actual  or  con- 
ceivable, in  the  universe,  there  would  have 
been  no  holiness.  There  would  have  been 
perfect  truth  and  perfect  righteousness,  yet 
not  Jioliness;  for  this  is  a  word  which  de- 
notes neither  any  one  of  the  virtues  in  par- 
ticular, nor  the  assemblage  of  them  all  put 
together,  but  the  recoil  or  the  repulsion  of 
these  toward  the  opposite  vices— a  recoil 
that  never  would  have  been  felt  if  vice  had 
been  so  far  a  nonentity  as  to  be  neither  an 
object  of  real  existence  nor  an  object  of 
thought"  (Chalmers,  JYa<.  Theol.). 

HOMILiETICS  (Grk.  6/u.iAtjtik6s,  from 
bfjuKelv^  to  converse),  that  department  of 
theological  science  which  expounds  the 
principles  of  the  preparation  and  delivery 
of  sermons;  the  science  of  preaching.  Dr. 
Broadus's  treatise  is  one  of  the  best.  (I.  20.) 

HOMOLOGOUMENA  {Homologoume- 
nai  Graphai,!.  42(3),  a  term  transferred  from 
the  Greek,  signifying  admitted,  conceded, 
and  applied  to  those  books  of  the  Now  Tes- 
tament which  Avere  universally  acknowl- 
edged as  canonical  by  the  early  Church; 
opposed  to  Antilerjomena  (which  sec). 

HOMOIOUSIANS  (Grk.  o^ioto?,  like, 
and  ovaLa,  substance),  a  branch  of  the  High 
Arians,  who  maintained  that  the  nature  of 
the  Son,  though  not  the  same,  was  similar 
to  that  of  the  Father.    (See  Ilomoousians.) 

HOMOIiOGY  (Grk.  o/LioAoyta,  agree- 
ment), a  scientific  term  for  the  similarity 
of  plan  or  function  existing  between  parts 
of  different  plants  and  animals,  as  between 
the  wing  of  a  bird  and  the  foreleg  of  a 
quadruped,  or  between  the  scales  of  a  fish 
and  the  feathers  of  a  bird.  The  homolog- 
ical  argument  for  the  existence  of  God, 
founded  on  this  unity  of  plan  or  structure, 
is  now  shan^ly  distinguished  from  the  tele- 
ological  argument.    (I.  5G.) 

HOMOOUSIANS  (Grk,6/x6s,  the  same, 
and  oucri'a,  substance),  a  name  applied  to 
the  Athanasians  or  orthodox,  who  held  the 
Son  to  be  consubstantial  with  the  Father — 
i.  e.,  of  the  same  nature  and  substance. 
The  Greek  word  6/ioovo-ios  became  the 
watch-word  of  orthodoxy.  Arians  and 
Semi-arians  exhibited  an  intense  and  un- 
wavering diilike  to  the  word  and  the  doc- 
trine it  embodied.  Principal  Cunnirgham 
{Historical  Theology,  I.  289,  290)  says: 
"Most  of  the  different  sections  into  which 
the  Arians  and  Semi-anans  split  in  the 
course  of  the  fourth  century  labored  to  de- 
vise, and  ostentatiously  paraded,  the  high- 
est and  most  exalted  terms  which  they 
could  consistently  apply  to  the  Son,  and 


some  of  them  professed  to  adopt  most  of  the 
terms  applied  to  him  in  the  Nicene  Creed; 
.  .  .  but  none  of  them  ever  would  admit 
the  doctrine  of  the  consiibstantiality.  .  .  . 
We  have  still  extant  several  creeds,  for 
example,  prepared  under  Arian  and  Semi- 
ariau  influence,  in  councils  held  at  Anti- 
och,  Sardica,  Sirmium,  and  Ariminum; 
and  the  great  facts  concerning  them  are 
these:  first,  that  they  all,  without  excep- 
tion, omit  the  word  6/u.ooucrios,  or  any  ex- 
pression of  similar  import;  and,  secondly, 
that  there  are  some  of  them  with  respect  to 
which  this  single  omission  is  the  only  very 
intelligible  or  palpable  difference  between 
them  and  the  one  at  Nice.  .  .  .  They 
made  many  attempts  to  appear  to  come  as 
near  as  possible  to  the  orthodox  doctrine, 
without  really  committing  themselves  to 
its  fundamental  distinctive  principle;  but 
the  word  6/u.oouo-ios  acted  like  Ithuriel's 
spear  in  detecting  all  their  shifts  and  ma- 
neuvers, and  in  holding  them  xip  to  the 
world  as  opposers,  whatever  they  might 
sometimes  pretend,  of  the  true  and  proper 
divinity  of  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Saviour 
of  sinners.  It  was  like  the  anchor  that 
held  the  orthodox  faith  in  steadiness  and 
safety  amid  the  fearful  storms  of  more 
than  half  a  century,  which  elapsed  be- 
tween the  first  and  second  ecumenical 
councils.  It  was  a  barrier  against  which 
neither  force  nor  fraud  could  i)revail,  and 
which,  in  so  far  as  any  thing  of  the  kind 
could  effect  it,  may  have  been  saitl  to  have 
kept  God's  truth  pure  and  undefiled  until 
the  calamity  had  overpassed,  and  a  period 
aiTived  more  favorable  to  the  open  profes- 
sion and  maintenance  of  the  true  doctrine 
which  he  has  made  known  concerning  his 
Son.  I  do  not  know  that  the  history  of  the 
Church  presents  to  us  another  instance  in 
which  the  wisdom  and  expediency  of  any 
particular  doctrinal  deliverance  have  been 
so  fully  established  by  experience." 

HukANITARIANISM  (Lat.  hxi- 
manitas,  humanity).  (1)  The  doctrine 
which  denies  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and 
asserts  t'.iat  he  is  a  mere  man.  (2)  In  re- 
cent years  the  term  has  been  abusively 
emplbyed  to  designate  the  theory  of  those 
who  would  eliminate  the  Godward  ele- 
ment from  religion,  and  reduce  duty  to  the 
discharge  of  obligations  to  our  fellow-men. 

HUTCHINSONIANS,  the  followers 
of  John  Hutchinson,  a  learned  and  respect- 
able layman,  who  was  born  at  Spenny- 
thorn,  in  Yorkshire,  in  1G74.  In  1721  he 
published  the  first  part  of  that  curious 
work,  Moses's  Principia,  in  which  he  rid- 


Glossary. 


25 


iculed  Dr.  AVooa-n-avd's  Xatural  History  of 
the  Earth.,  and  attempted  to  explode  the 
doctrine  of  gravitation  established  in  Sir 
Isaac  Newton's  Principia.  In  the  second 
part  of  this  work,  published  in  1727,  he 
maintained,  in  opposition  to  the  Newtonian 
system,  that  a  plenum  is  the  principle  of 
the  Scripture  philosophy.  In  this  work  he 
also  intimated  that  the  idea  of  a  Trinity  is 
to  be  taken  from  the  grand  agents  in  the 
natural  system  — fire,  light,  and  spirit. 
From  this  time  he  continued  to  publish  a 
volume  every  year  or  two  till  his  death; 
and  a  correct  and  elegant  edition  of  his 
works,  including  the  MSS.  which  he  left, 
was  publislied  in  174S,  in  12  vols.  8vo.  Mr. 
Hutchinson  thought  that  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  com])rise  a  pei-fect  system  of 
natural  philosophy,  theology,  and  religion. 
(I.  151,  lo2.) 

HYPOSTATIC  UNION  (Grk.  inoara- 
o-is,  person),  the  union  of  the  divine  and 
human  natures  in  Christ  so  as  to  constitute 
one  person.    (1. 192.) 

ICONOCLASM  (Grk.  ^koiv,  image; 
Kya^eiv,  to  break),  image-breaking,  is  a 
name  for  the  struggle  in  the  Church  for 
the  destruction  of  all  images  used  for 
worship  in-  churches.  The  Emperor  Leo 
III.  (717-741)  issued  an  edict  against  the 
xise  of  images,  but  the  people  violently  re- 
sisted its  enforcement,  especially  in  Con- 
stantinople. The  great  Greek  theologian, 
John  of  Damascus,  was  led  to  adduce  the 
ordinary  arguments  for  image-worship 
with  greater  elegance  and  ingenuity  than 
had  ever  been  done  before.  But  Leo's  suc- 
cessoi',  Constantinus  Copronymus,  obtained 
the  condemnation  of  image-worship  in  the 
Synod  of  Constantinople,  754.  Leo  lY.  en- 
forced this  law;  but  his  widow,  Irene,  one 
of  the  basest  of  women,  assembled  a  council 
at  Nicaifv  in  787  (acknowledged  by  both 
Greeks  and  Latins  as  the  Seventh  Ecumen- 
ical), which  re-established  image-worship. 
Leo  V.  (S 13-821)  brought  about  its  abolition 
by  another  Constantinoi)olitan  Synod.  Mi- 
chael II.  (821-824)  tolerated  the  worship; 
but  his  son  Theophilus  (829-842)  renewed 
all  the  edicts  against  images.  After  his 
death  his  widow  restored  image-worship, 
in  842,  and  instituted  the  festival  of  the 
Orthodoxy  (1),  Avhich  is  yet  kept  by  the 
Greek  Church  in  memory  of  this  restora- 
tion. The  Greek  Christians  have  since  re- 
tained images  in  their  churches,  but  with- 
out worshiping  them.  The  Avell- known 
Latin  custom  was  Anally  settled  at  the 
Council  of  Trent. 
35  Vol,  2 


ID£)A  (Grk.  iSe'a,  elfio?,  forma.,  species^ 
image).  I.  Common  modern  usage.  (1)  In  its 
widest  sense,  every  product  of  intellectual 
action,  or  even  eveiy  modification;  (2)  in 
more  restricted  use,  a  mental  image  of  an 
external  object.  II.  Special  usage.  (1) 
Platonic:  according  to  Plato,  ideas  are  the 
archetypes  of  tlie  manifold  varieties  of  ex- 
istence in  the  universe.  These  archetypes 
belong  to  the  supei'sensible"  world,  Avhere 
reality  is  found,  and  in  the  midst  of  which 
God  dwells.  (2)  Kantian :  in  the  philosophy 
of  Kant  ideas  are  products  of  the  reason 
iVernunft).,  transcending  the  conceptions 
of  the  understanding,  being  named  by  him 
"transcendental  ideas."  These  ideas  arc 
three  in  number:  the  soul,  the  iiniversc, 
and  God.  In  the  functions  of  mind  they 
are  concerned  with  the  unification  of  exist- 
ence. (3)  Hegelian:  in  the  system  of  He- 
gel, Avhich  finds  in  the  dialectic  evolution 
of  the  categories  of  the  understanding  the 
evolution  of  all  existence  as  a  ixnity,  the 
idea  is  the  Absolute  toward  which  the  ev- 
olution of  being  is  moving.  The  idea,  as 
the  Absolute,  manifests  itself  through  nat- 
ure, then  through  spirit,  and  returns  upon 
itself  as  the  Absolute.  The  Platonic  use 
was  objective,  the  modern  is  subjective. 
The  idea  was  to  Plato  the  essence  of  a 
thing;  there  was  no  immediate  reference 
to  a  mind  in  which  it  existed.  The  idea 
was  eternal,  and  existed  independently  of 
the  finite  minds  which  contemplated  it. 
In  modern  usage,  on  the  contrary,  ideal 
existence  is  synonymous  with  mind-de- 
pendent existence. 

IDEAIi,  that  which  the  mind  contem- 
plates as  a  representation  (1)  of  the  normal 
excellence  of  any  being— perfection;  (2)  in 
intelligent  life,  what  ought  to  be,  in  con- 
trast with  what  exists— the  I'ight;  (3)  m 
art,  the  conception  present  to  the  imagina- 
tion, Avhich  the  artist  tries  to  depict— the 
beautiful;  (4)  the  representation  in  a  sin- 
gle individual  of  all  the  excellences  of  an 
order. 

IDEALISM.  According  to  the  unso- 
phisticated judgment  of  mankind,  in  every 
act  of  knowledge  there  are  two  opposed 
elements:  (1)  the  Subject,  or  mind,  know- 
ing, and  (2)  the  Object  known.  The  phi- 
losophy which  accepts  and  defends  this 
fundamental  antithesis  of  Subject  and  Ob- 
ject is  knoAvn  as  Nat  ural  Realism.,  or  Dual- 
ism. The  philosophy  which  denies  the  ex- 
ternal and  independent  existence  of  the 
Object,  asserting  that  all  that  can  be  known 
is  the  states  of  the  Subject  is  Idealism. 
The  philosophy  which  denies  the  existence 


26 


Glossary. 


of  the  Subject,  usserting  that  so-called 
mental  experiences  are  only  the  result  of 
the  action  of  external  objects  on  the  organ- 
ism, and  that  there  is  no  abiding  Subject, 
is  Materialism. 

IDOLATRY  (Grk.  el5os,  image,  Xarpev- 
€iv,  to  worship),  the  adoration  of  false  gods; 
or  the  giving  those  honors  to  creatures,  or 
the  works  of  man's  hands,  v.'hich  are  due 
to  God  only. 

IMMANENT  (Lat.  immanere.,  to  re- 
main in),  that  which  does  not  pass  out  of  a 
certain  subject  or  certain  limits;  indwell- 
ing, in  contrast  with  transcending.  Pan- 
theists hold  that  God  does  not  exist  outside 
of  the  world  as  a  free,  personal  (transcend- 
ent) being,  but  inside  of  it,  as  the  highest 
unity  of  the  world,  because  God  cannot, 
according  to  pantheistic  teaching,  be  con- 
■ceived  of  without  the  world.  There  is  also 
a  true  Christian  doctrine  of  the  immanenc}' 
•  of  God. 

IMMUTABILITY  (Lat.  immutabili- 
■  ias^  uuchangeableness),  impossil)ility  of 
•change.  It  is  applied  to  God  as  the  Abso- 
lute, to  denote  that  there  can  be  no  incon- 
stancy, such  as  change  Avould  imply,  in  his 
character  or  government. 

IMPUTATION  fLat.  in,  and  putare, 
to  reckon),  the  attribution  of  personal 
guilt,  or  of  penal  conse(iuences  to  one  ])er- 
son  or  to  many  on  account  of  the  sin  com- 
mitted by  another;  a  similar  attribution  of 
l)ersonal  excellence  or  its  rewards.  In  the 
Calvinistic  scheme  there  are  three  great 
immediate  imputations:  (1)  the  imputation 
of  Adam's  sin  to  all  his  posterity;  (2i  the 
imputation  of  the  sins  of  the  elect  to  Christ; 
and  (3)  the  imputation  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  active  and  passive,  to  the 
elect.  (ll.nr>-45.) 

INAMISSIBILITY  (Lat.  prefix  in, 
not,  and  amissibilis,  that  may  be  lost,  from 
o,  from,  and  miltcrc,  to  send;,  as  ajjplied  to 
grace,  is  descriptive  of  the  Calvinistic  doc- 
trine that  the  believer  can  never  totally 
and  finally  lose  or  forfeit  the  grace  of  sal- 
vation.   (II.  173-210.) 

INCARNATION  (Lat.  in,  and  caro, 
ram  is,  llesh),  Christ's  assumption  not  only 
of  a  human  body,  but  of  all  things  pertain- 
ing to  the  perfection  of  man's  nature.  (I. 
178-214.) 

INDIFFERENCE,  Liberty  of,  a  sup- 
posed exercise  of  will  unaffected  b\'  motive. 
It  has  been  used  as  an  argument  for  the 
freeilom  of  the  will;  but  even  if  such  a  vo- 
lition could  actually  be  put  forth,  it  could 
have  no  value  in  the  argument,  since  it 
does  not  bear  upon  that  government  of  mo- 


tives which  is  implied  in  the  true  doctrine 
of  libertarian  ism.  M'hedon,  Hazard,  and 
Tappan  are  among  the  able&t  of  American 
writers  on  the  freedom  of  the  will. 

INDULGENCE  (Lat.  indulyentia,  fa- 
vor, kindness)  in  Koman  Catholic  nomen- 
clature signifies,  as  delined  by  Dens^,  the 
remission  of  the  temporal  punishment  due 
to  sins,  through  the  power  of  the  keys,  by 
the  application  of  the  superabundant  satis- 
factions of  Christ,  the  Virgin,  saints,  and 
pious  men.  (11.254-259.) 

IN  ESSE,  IN  POSSE,  two  contrasted 
Latin  expressions,  the  former  denoting  the 
actual,  and  the  latter  the  possible . 

INFALLIBILITY,  of  the  Pope,  is  a 
dogma  of  the  Koman  Catholic  Church  de- 
clared by  the  A'atican  Council,  July  18, 1870, 
according  to  which  it  is    a  doctrine  divine- 
ly revealed  that,  when  the  Roman  pontiff 
speaks  cz  cathedra,  that  is,  when  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  his  office  of  pastor  and  teacher  of 
all  Christians,  and  in  virtue  of  his  supreme 
apostolic  authority,  he  defines  that  a  doc- 
trine of  faith  or  morals  is  to  be  held  by  the 
universal  Church,  he  possesses,  through  the 
divine  assistance  i)romised  to  him  in  blessed 
Peter,  that  infallibility  Avith  which  the  di- 
vine Redeemer  Avilled  his  Church  to  be  en- 
dowed, in  defining  a  <loctrine  of  faith  and 
morals;  and  thei'cfore  that  such  definitions 
of  the  Roman  pontiff"  are  irreformable  of 
themselves,  and  not  by  force  of  the  consent 
of  the  Church  thereto."   At  the  meeting  of 
the  Council  (Decembers,  18fi9)  three  i)arties 
were  soon  discovered  among  the  bishops: 
(1)  the  iiltramontanes,  (2)  the  moderates, 
and  '3)  those  opposed  to  the  proposed  dog- 
ma.  The  petition  for  the  promulgation  of 
infallibility  secured  four  hundred  and  ten 
signatures.   The  two  counter  addresses — 
the  moderate  one  ])rei)ared  by  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Baltimore,  and  the  one  against 
the  i)romulgation  drawn  up  by  Cardinal 
Archbishoi)  Rauscher,  of  Vienna— secured 
one  hundred  ami  sixtj— two  signatures,  of 
which  twenty  were  American,  forty-six 
French,  thirty -seven  German,  nineteen 
Oriental,  fourteen  Hungarian,  and  fifteen 
Italian.   Professor  Dollinger,  by  common 
consent  the  most  learned  Church  historian 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  immediately 
subjected  the  arguments  in  the  i)etilion  of 
the  four  hundred  and  ten  bishops  to  the  most 
crushing  historical  criticism,  aflirming  that 
"one  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  of  hu- 
man beings  are  to  be  forced,  on  ])ain  of  ex- 
communication, refusal  of  the  sacraments, 
and  everlasting  damnation,  to  believe  and 
])rofess  that  which  hitherto  the  Church  has 


Glossarij. 


27 


nvC  believed.  iu)t  taught."  The  proclamation 
oi  the  «loguia,  he  saul  would  be  an    altei  a- 
liou  in  the  faith  ami  doctrine  of  the  Church 
such  us  has  never  been  heard  of  aitice  Chris- 
tianity was Jirst Joanded."    Doiliuger  aft- 
erward withdrew  and  lorined  the  Lumiuun- 
lou  known  as  Old  Catholic.   In  a  ballot 
taken  July  13  there  were  still  eighty-eisht 
negative  votes  (non-placets),  but  on  the 
linal  ballot,  July  l^,  there  were  only  two 
nun-placets,  against  five  hundred  and  thir-  | 
ty-four  placets  and  one  hundred  and  six  i 
absentees,  some  of  whom  pleaded  sickness.  ; 
In  Geiinany  a  number  of  the  most  pronii-  , 
ncnt  theological  pitjfessors  were  removed 
from  their  chairs  for  refusal  to  adhere.  , 
Bisho])  Ilcfelc,  the  great  Roman  historian  ! 
of  the  councils,  who  was  regarded  as  the 
most  learned  bishop  in  the  Vatican  assem-  | 
bly,  i)ubli>hed  a  pamphlet  against  the  dog-  j 
ma  while  it  was  under  discussion  in  the  | 
Council;  but  lie  submitted.    When  fifty- 
live  speeches  had  been  made  on  the  ques- 
tion, one  hundred  and  fifty  bishops  peti- 
tionee! for  the  closing  of  the  debate,  wliich 
was  done  according  to  rule,  to  the  great 
dissatisfaction  of  the  opponents  of  infalli- 
bility, a  number  of  whom  protested  to  the 
Po]je.   Thus  Roman  (.  atholirism  adopted  a 
new  ininciple  which  renders  forever  im- 
l>ossible  the  unification  of  Christendom  by 
means  of  a  General  Council. 

INSPIRATION  (Lat.  in.  and  spirare, 
to  breathe),  denotes  in  theological  language 
the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  The  corresponding  Greek  word 
dfOTTvevaTiK,  which  occurs  in  2  Tim.  iii.  16. 
means  literally  God-breathed.  Di-.  Sum- 
mers discusses  the  Mechanical,  Rationalist- 
ic, and  Dynamical  theories  of  Inspiration, 
indorsing  the  last.  (I.  440-472.)  Inspira- 
tion is  commonly  regarded  as  (1)  antcced- 
ens,  (2)  concomitans,  and  ^3)  conscquois. 
(!)  Ir.spiratio  antecedens,  or  Revelation 
l)roper,  is  the  communication  of  truths  un- 
known to  tlic  sacred  writers,  and  ordinarily 
unobtainable  in  the  use  of  human  faculties 
and  means.  (2)  Inspiratio  concomitans  is 
the  security  against  error  afforded  the  sa- 
cred Avritei-s  in  ])utting  to  )-ecoi-(l  by  divine 
(erection  facts  and  truths  Avith  which  they 
arc  already  acquainted.  (31  Inspiratio  con  - 
scquens  is  the  divine  approval  stamped 
upon  writings  originally  com poseil  without 
inspiration,  but  Ijy  «livine  direction  incor- 
lK)ratcd  in  the  Holy  Serii)turcs. 

INTRODUCTION,  or  ISAGOGICS 

(Grk.  eio-a-ywYTj,  f'.Oni  eU.  into,  and  ayeiv,  to 

lead),  is  that  part  of  Biblical  science  Avhich 
aims  to  furnish  a  general  view  of  such  sub- 


jects as  are  preliminary  to  a  scientific  ex- 
position of  the  sacred  books.  The  field  for- 
merly covered  by  •■Introduction  "  was  not 
very  detinue.  In  Home's  Introduction 
may  be  found  materials  properly  belonging 
to  geography,  antiquities,  inteiinetation, 
natural  history,  etc.  A  good  book  cover- 
ing this  general  ground  is  Angus's  Hand- 
book of  the  Bible.  Scientific  Introduction 
iEinleitung,  as  the  Gennans  call  it)  may 
now  be  said  to  include:  ;l)  the  histoiy  or" 
the  separate  Biblical  books;  (2)  the  history 
of  the  collection  of  these  Looks,  or  of  the  can- 
on; (3)  the  history  of  the  spread  of  these 
books,  or  of  Bible  translation;  :-t)  the  his- 
tory of  the  preservation  of  the  text.  "With 
respect  to  each  book.  Introduction  discuss- 
es (1)  authorship,  '2)  date,  '3)  place,  4) 
authority,  {'))  contents,  6)  style,  and  7) 
s])ecial  difliculties.  Dr.  H.  31.  Hanuan's 
Introduction  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  may 
be  commended  to  the  student. 

IRENiETJS  {cir.  130-202i.  Bishop  of  Ly- 
ons, in  Fiance,  one  of  the  most  distin- 
guished of  early  Church  writers,  called 
i  by  Theodoret  *'  the  light  of  the  Western 
Chui-ch,"   His  great  work.  Against  Heie- 
sies,  is  highly  prized,  and  ''is  at  once" 
says    Schafl",   "the   polemic,  theological 
I  masterjjiece  of  the  ante-Nicene  age.  and 
i  the  richest  mine  of  information  respecting 
the  Gnostics,  particularly  the  Valentinian 
I  heresy,  and  the  Church  doctrine  of  that 
age."    His  entire  writings  cover,  in  the 
English  translation,  between  six  ami  seven 
hundred  pages  of  the  "Ante-Nicene  Li- 
brary" of  Messrs.  T.  &  T.  Clark,  of  Edin- 
burgh, and  are  ])erhaps  the  most  valuable 
relic  of  early  Christian  antiquity, 
j    IRENIC3  (Grk.  eipvjiaj,  peace)  is  the 
'  designation  of  that  foiTU  of  theological 
!  composition  which  seeks  the  reconciliation 
'  of  doctrinal  differences  between  the  several 
schools  of  theology  ami  the  attainment  of 
dogmatic  unity.  Irenics  is  the  complement 
of  ])olemics,  which,  while  maintaining  tlie 
:  truth,  should  also  pass  over  into  a  struggle 
j  for  peace,    fl.  26.)    S^ee  Polemics. 

IRVINGITES,  followers  of  the  late 
I  Edward  Irving,  who  in  1S2O-C0  delivere<l 
I  discourses  in  the  Scottish  Church,  London, 
'  on  the  subject  of  the  restoration  of  s]nnt- 
ual  charisms  to  the  Church.  Umler  spc- 
'  ciftl  inspiration,  as  his  followers  claimecl, 
j  they  revived  the  orders  of  apostle,  prophet, 
evangelist,  etc.,  only  the  apostles  ordain- 
'  ing.  Ii-ving  himself  ceased  the  exei-cise  oT 
I  his  ministerial  ofKce  until  he  was  apostol- 
j  ically  ordained.  The  Irvingites  call  them- 
I  selves  "the  Aposto'-'c  Catholic  Church," 


28 


Glossary. 


and  iii-e  said  to  be  spreading  in  England 
and  continental  Europe.  Irving  was  ex- 
pelled by  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Scotch  Kirk,  and  after  several  years  of  elo- 
quent preaching,  died  December  6,  1834,  in 
his  forty-third  yeai-.  In  Glasgow  he  had 
been  an  assistant  to  Dr.  I  halmers  before 
removing  to  London. 

JACOBITES,  an  heretical  denomina- 
tion of  I^astcrn  C  hristians,  who  first  made 
their  appearance  in  the  fifth  century,  and 
were  called  Monophi/sitcs  (which  see). 
Jacob  B;u*ada>us,  who  flourished  about  530 
A.I).,  restored  the  sect,  then  almost  expir- 
ing, and  remodeled  it:  hence  the  name 
Jacobites.    (II.  2SG.) 

JANSENISTS,  a  party  of  Roman 
Catholics  in  France,  which  was  foiTued  in 
1040.  They  followed  the  opinions  of  Jan- 
Renius,  Bishop  of  Ypre^i,  whose  theological 
system  coincided  pratically  with  that  of 
Augustin  .and  Calvin.  Janscnius  was  a 
devoted  student  of  Augustin,  and  wmte  a 
vol  k  called  ^  ».7w.s^"«i<s,  consisting  of  ex- 
tracts from  that  father.  From  this  book 
the  -Tesuits,  the  avowed  enemies  of  the 
Janscnis.ts,  extraclctl  the  ])ropositions 
which  were  condemned  by  Poj)es  Innocent 
X.  and  Alexander  VI 1.  The  Janscnists  of 
Port  Royal  may  be  denominated  the  evan- 
gelical jiarty  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Cluirch:  among  their  number  were  the 
famous  Father  Quesnel,  Pierre  Nicole, 
rascal,  De  Sacy,  Diiguet,  and  Arnauld: 
tlie  last  of  whom  is  styled  by  Boileau  "  the 
most  learned  mortal  that  ever  lived.''  Tliey 
consecrated  all  their  great  i)Owcrs  to  the 
service  of  the  cross:  and  for  their  attach- 
ment to  the  grand  article  of  the  Protestant 
reformation— justification  by  faith,  with 
other  capital  <loctrines— they  sufi'ered  the 
loss  of  all  things.  The  Jesuits,  their  im- 
placable enemies,  never  ceased  until  they 
]ircvailed  upon  their  sovereign,  Louis 
XIV.,  to  destroy  the  abbey  of  Port  Royal, 
Hnd  banish  its  inhabitants. 

JEROME,  or  ITieronymus  I'cir.  345-420), 
one  of  tiie  most  learned  and  able  of  the  Fa- 
l!iers  of  the  Westeni  Church,  was  both  a 
Hebrew  and  a  Greek  scholar,  whose  chief 
monument  is  the  Vulgate  edition  of  the 
Bible,  Mhich  exerted  the  same  influence 
iijmn  Latin  Christendom  as  the  Septuagint 
«il)on  Greek.  It  is  made  immediately  from 
the  original  languages,  and  is  as  much  su- 
perior to  the  Itala  as  Luther's  liible  to  the 
obler  German  versions.  "  Above  all  his 
contemporaries,"  says  Schafl",  "and  even 
all  lu8  successors  down  to  the  sixteenth 


century,  Jei-orae,  by  his  linguistic  knowl- 
edge, his  Oriental  travel,  and  his  eutii-e 
culture,  was  best  fitted,  and,  in  fact,  the 
only  man  to  undertake  and  successfully 
execute  so  gigantic  a  task— a  task  which 
just  then,  with  the  approaching  separation 
of  East  and  West,  and  the  decay  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  original  languages  of  the 
Bible  in  Latin  Christendom,  Avas  of  the 
highest  necessity." 

JESUITS,  or  the  society  of  Jesns,  one 
of  the  most  celebrated  monastic  orders  of 
the  Romish  Church,  Avas  founded  in  the 
year  1540,  by  Ignatius  Loyola.  Forsaking 
the  military  for  the  ecclesiastical  profes- 
sion, he  engaged  himself  in  the  wildest 
and  most  extravagant  adventures,  as  the 
knight  of  the  blessed  Virgin.  After  per- 
forming a  pilgrimage  to  the  Holy  Land, 
and  pursuing  a  multitude  of  visionaiy 
schemes,  he  returned  to  ]M  osecute  his  theo- 
logical studies  in  the  universities  of  Spain, 
when  he  was  about  thirty-three  years  of 
age.  He  next  went  to  Paris,  where  he  col- 
lected a  small  number  of  associates;  and, 
l)rompted  by  his  fanatical  spirit  or  the  love 
of  distinction,  began  to  conceive  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  new  religfous  ordei*.  He 
produced  a  ])lan  of  its  constitution  and 
laws,  which  he  aflirmed  to  have  been  sug- 
gested by  the  immediate  insjiiration  of 
Heaven,  and  applied  to  the  lioman  pontifl', 
Paul  III.,  for  the  sanction  of  his  authority 
to  confirm  the  institution.  At  a  time  when 
the  i)a)ial  authority  had  received  so  sevcie 
a  shock  from  the  progress  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, and  was  still  exposed  to  tiie  most 
powerful  attacks  in  every  quarter,  this 
was  an  ofler  too  tempting  to  be  resisted. 
The  reigning  i)ontiQ',  though  naturally  cau- 
tious, and  though  scarcely  capaiile,  without 
the  si)irit  of  ])rophecy,  of  foreseeing  all  the 
advantages  to  be  derived  from  the  services 
of  this  nascent  order,  yet  clearly  peix;eiving 
the  benefit  of  multiplying  the  number  of 
his  devoted  servants,  instantly  confirmed 
by  his  bull  the  institution  of  the  Jesuits, 
granted  the  most  amjile  juivileges  to  the 
mcml)eis  of  the  S(X*iety,  and  a])]K)inted 
Loyola  to  be  the  first  general  of  the  or- 
der. 

JOHN  OF  DAMASCUS  (cir.  076-7541 
is  the  aiillior  of  the  stan<lard  text-book  of 
dogmatic  theology  in  the  Greek  Chui'ch. 
Cnder  Leo  the  Isaurian  and  Constantino 
j  Copronymus  he  zealously  defended  image- 
'  worship.    Church  writers  agree  in  consid- 
]  ering  .lohn  Damascenus  as  superior  to  all 
his  contemporaries  in  iihilosojihy  an<l  eru- 
j  dition.   His  Fountain  of  Knowledge  tveals 


Glossary. 


29 


of  (1)  Dialectics,  (2)  Heresies,  and  (C)  the 
Orthodox  Faith. 

JUBILATE  DBOiO  be  joyful  in  God!), 
I's.  c,  ajjijoiuted  iu  the  Euglioh  C'huich  to 
be  UbGd  aiter  the  secoud  lessuu  in  the  mo  ru- 
ing service, 

JURE  DrVINO,  a  Latin  phrase  signi- 
fyiug  bi/  divine  right,  and  Usually  aiiplied 
in  tlieology  to  the  claim  of  bishops  to  be 
the  divinely-appointed  succesisors  of  the 
ai)ostles  and  rulers  of  Christ's  Church, 
without  Avhosc  ijreseuce  there  is  no  valid 
Church, 

JUSTIFICATION  is  the  divine  judi- 
cial act  which  a])plies  to  the  sinner,  believ- 
ing in  Chi  ist,  the  benefit  of  tlie  atonement, 
delivering  him  from  the  condemnation  of 
his  sin,  inti'oducing  him  into  a  state  of  fa- 
vor, and  treating  hini  as  a  righteous  per- 
son. The  phrase  jusd/icatio  interna  is 
sometimes  used  to  designate  the  Romish 
doctrine  that  justification  is  an  actual 
making  just  or  righteous— i,  r.,  regenera- 
tion, whUc  jiisti/icaiio  externa  is  descrip- 
tive of  tlic  Protestant  doctrine  that  justifi- 
cation is  ])ardou— I.  e.,  a  declarative  act  of 
forgiveness, 

JUSTIN  MARTYR  (cir,  100-1G3),  the 
cliicf  of  the  early  Apologists,  who,  upon  his 
«'onvei  sion,  retained  his  philosoplier's  dress 
.ind  habits,  and  tauglit  tlie  new  and  divine 
])hilosophy  to  all  seekei's  after  truth.  In 
his  apologies  to  the  emperors  he  not  merely 
argued  for  the  toleration  of  Christians,  but 
jippcalcd  personally  to  the  sovereigns  of 
the  world  to  accept  the  Christian  faith, 
Justin's 'genuine  works  are  tw  o  Apologies 
and  the  Dialogue  icith  Tri/pho.  Coiniic- 
tent  authorities  estimate  him  as  the  gieat- 
est  and  most  infiuential  man  between  the 
Apostle  John  an<l  Oi'igcn. 

KANT,  Immanuci  aT-24-1804\  the  most 
distinguished  and  infiuential  of  German 
])hilosoplKMs,  was  educated  at  the  Univer- 
sity of  Kcinigsberg,  whei  e  he  became  pri- 
vat-doeent  (17.55)  and  professor  of  logic  and 
nictai)iiysics  (1770),  filling  his  chair  unin- 
terruptedly until  1707.  His  Critique  of 
Pure  Jleason,  an  epoch-making  work,  ap- 
l^eared  in  1781,  the  Critique  of  the  Practiced 
Benson  in  1787,  and  the  Religion  Within  the 
Bounds  of  Pure  Eeason  in  1793.  (For  an 
epitome  of  the  contents  of  this  last  treatise, 
.cee  I,  4.'.7,  foot-note.)  In  contrast  with  the 
jireviously  existing  Dogmatism,  Empiri- 
cism, and  Pkepticism,  Kant  called  his  ])hi- 
losophy  Criticism,  i.  e.,  the  system  whose 
primary  inciuiry  i><  conceming  the  limits 
and  powers  of  the  human  faculty  of  know  - 


edge,  and  the  validity  of  its  products.  For 
outlines  of  his  philosophy,  see  the  Histories 
of  Philosophy,  by  -Schwegler  and  Ueber- 
weg.  Two  good  translations  of  the  Critique 

j  of  Pure  Reason  have  been  made  into  En- 
glish, Meiklejohn's  (1  vol.,  ]2mo)  in  Bohn's 

j  Library,  and  Max  Muller's  (2  vols.,  8vo). 
KENOSIS  /ceVujcris),  a  Greek  term  sig- 
nifying the  act  of  onptying  or  self-divesti- 
ture, and  employed  by  modern  German  di- 
vines to  ex])ress  the  voluntary  humiliation 
of  Christ  in  his  incarnate  state.  It  is  bor- 
rowed from  the  language  of  St.  Paul,  But 
made  himself  of  no  reputation"  (eavrhu  e/ce- 
voive,  literally  "emptied  himself  "),  in  Phil, 
ii.  7.  The  same  self-abasement  is  indicated 
in  other  passages,  e.  g.,  the  Son  laid  asi<le  the 
glory  which  he  had  with  the  Father  before 
the  world  was  (John  xvii.  5),  and  became 
poor  (2  Cor.  viii.  fl).    (I.  187.) 

KNAPP,  George  Christian  (1753-1825), 
an  eminent  Gennan  Protestant  theolo- 
gian, whose  Christian  Theology  has  been 
translated  into  English  and  has  deservedly 
exercised  an  extensive  influence  in  Ameri- 
ca. He  entered  Halle  in  1770;  began  lect- 
uring on  pliilosophy  in  1775;  was  appointed 
extraordinary  professor  in  1777,  and  regu- 
lar ])rofessor  in  17S2.  Dr.  F.  "NV.  Krum- 
machci-  has  described  him  as  "the  last  de- 
scendant of  the  old  theological  school  of 
Halle  "  and  asserts  that  he  "  was  Avell  able, 
from  intellectual  ability  and  scientific  at- 
tainment, to  have  waged  a  successful  war 
against  the  then  raging  Rationalism,  and 
to  have  tossed  from  their  airy  saddles  its 
champions  among  his  colleagues  who  were 
intoxicated  with  ti'iumph,"  but  that  "his 
excessive  gentleness  and  modesty,  border- 
ing even  on  timidity,  led  him  carefully  to 
avoid  every  thing  like  direct  polemics." 

KORAN,  often  anglicized  with  tlie  Ara- 
l)ic  article  prefixed  (Al-coran),  or  more 
precisely  Quran,  is  the  name  of  the  Moham- 
medan book  of  faith,  which  is  divided  into 
one  hundred  and  fourteen  sections  calle<l 
Surus,  Avhich  signifies  a  regular  series.  The 
book  is  easibly  accessible  in  George  Sale's 
English  translation  (1st  ed.  Loudon,  1734; 
last,  London,  1801). 

LACHMANN,  Karl  (1793-1851;,  a  dis- 
tinguished German  philologist,  i)rofessor 
at  Berlin  from  1827  to  his  death,  Avho  con- 
fined himself  mainly  to  editions  of  classical 
authors,  but  published  an  edition  of  the 
Greek  New  Testament  (Berlin,  1831;  in  a 
larger  form,  18ir)-50).  "He  aimed  at  pre- 
senting," says  Dr.  AV.  L.  Alexander,  "as 
far  as  possible,  the  text  as  it  was  in  the 


30 


Glossarij. 


authoiizcd  copies  of  the  fourth  century.  . 
.  .  Foi-  this  purpose  he  niude  use  of  only 
a  very  few  INISS." 

LAMBETH  ARTICLES,  certain 
baldly  Calvinistic  articles  drawn  up  at 
Lambeth,  in  1595,  by  the  then  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury  (Whitgift),  the  Bishop  of 
London,  and  some  other  divines,  as  fol- 
lows: "1.  God  hath  from  eternity  predes- 
tinated certain  persons  to  life,  and  hath 
reprobated  certain  persons  unto  death.  2. 
The  moving  or  elTicient  cause  of  predesti- 
nation luito  life  is  not  the  foresight  of  faith, 
or  of  i)erseverauce,  or  of  good  Avorks,  or  of 
any  thing  that  is  in  the  persons  predesti- 
nated; but  the  alone  Avill  of  God's  good 
pleasure.  3.  The  predestinate  are  a  pre- 
determined and  certain  number,  Avhich 
can  neither  be  lessened  nor  increased.  4. 
Such  as  are  not  predestinated  to  salvation 
shall  inevitably  be  condemned  on  account 
of  their  sins.  5.  The  triie,  lively,  and  jus- 
tifying faith,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  justify- 
ing, is  not  extinguished,  doth  not  utterly 
fail,  dolh  not  vanish  away  in  the  elect, 
cii  her  finally  or  totally.  6.  A  true  believer 
— lliat  is,  one  who  is  endued  -with  justifying 
faith— is  certilled  by  the  full  assurance  of 
faith  that  his  sins  are  forgiven,  and  that  he 
shall  be  everlastingly  saved  by  Christ.  7. 
Saving  grace  is  not  allowed,  is  not  impai-t- 
od,  is  not  granted  to  all  men,  by  Avhich 
they  may  be  saved  if  they  -will.  8.  No  man 
is  able  to  come  to  Christ,  unless  it  be  given 
him,  and  unless  the  Father  draw  him;  and 
all  men  are  not  drawn  by  the  Father,  that 
they  may  come  to  his  Son.  0.  Jt  is  not  in 
tlie  will  or  power  of  every  man  to  be 
saved."'    (IT.  ITH.) 

LATITUDINARIANS,  a  term  ap- 
jilied  to  those  divines  wlu),  in  the  seven- 
teenth centurj",  attem])ted  to  bring  Fpisco- 
l)alians,  I'resbyterians,  and  rndei>endents 
into  one  communion,  by  compromising  the 
differences  between  them.  The  chief  lead- 
ers of  this  party  were  the  great  Chilling- 
■worth  and  .John  Hales;  to  whom  may  be 
added  More,  Cudworth,  Gale,  Tillotson, 
and  ^Vhitchcot.  They  Avere  zealously  at- 
tached to  the  Church  of  England,  but  tlid 
not  look  upon  episcopacy  as  indisi)cnsabk' 
to  the  cotistitution  of  the  Christian  Chui'ch. 
Hence  they  maintained  that  those  Avho 
adoi)ted  other  forms  of  government  and 
Avorship  were  not  on  that  account  to  be 
exchided  fi-om  the  communion,  or  to  for- 
Jeit  the  title  of  brethren.  They  reduce«l  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  Chi'istianity  to  a 
fCAV  i)oints,  r.y  this  Avay  of  proceedijig 
they  cndcaA'ored  to  show  that  neither  the 


Episcopalians.  Avho,  generally  speaking, 
Avere  then  Arminians,  nor  the  Presbyteri- 
ans and  Independents,  who  as  generally 
adopted  the  doctrines  of  (Jalvin,  had  any 
reason  to  oppose  each  other  Avith  such  ani- 
mosity and  bitterness,  since  the  subjects  of 
their  debates  Avere  matters  non-essential 
to  salvation,  and  might  be  variously  ex- 
plained and  understood  Avithout;  prejudice 
to  their  eternal  interests.  This  plan  fail- 
ing, through  the  Adolcnce  of  the  bishops  on 
one  hand  (though  sanctioned  by  the  Lord 
Chancellor  Clarendon),  and  by  the  jeal- 
ousy of  the  more  rigid  on  the  othei-,  the 
name  Latitiulinarian  became  a  term  of 
reproach,  as  imiilying  an  indifference  to  all 
religions,  and  has  been  genei-ally  so  used 
ever  since.  The  name  is  now  frequently 
ai)plied  to  the  Broad-church  party  in  the 
English  Chiirch  and  its  offshoots. 

LEIBNITZ,  Gottfried  Wilhelm  (IWfk 
171(3),  i)hiIosopher  and  courtier,  is  consid- 
ei-ed  by  many  as  next  to  Aristotle,  the  most 
highly-gifted  scholar  that  had  lived  up  to 
his  times.  After  his  education  at  Leipsic, 
Jena,  and  Altd(n'f,  lus  life  Avas  spent  in 
various  ])ublic  capacities  in  Paris,  London, 
Hanover,  Vienna,  and  Berlin.  At  Berlin 
he  Avas  intimately  associated  Avith  the  bi'ill- 
iant  Prussian  Queen,  Soi)hia  Charlotte,  for 
Avhom  he  Avrote  his  Theodicy.  His  doc- 
trine of  "Monads"  is  his  chief  claim  to 
philosophical  distinction,  and  emlu'aces 
the  pre-established  harmony,  an  hyi)othesis 
for  the  explanation  of  the  union  of  soul 
and  body.  In  his  Nouveaux  Etmais  he  de- 
fends the  doctrine  of  innate  ideas  against 
Locke's  Essay,  and  may  be  regariled  as  t!ie 
head  of  the  modern  si)iritualistic  i)lillos- 
ophy,  as  Locke  is  of  the  materialistic.  In 
his  Tlicodicy  Leibnitz  reduces  evil  to  (1) 
metaphysical,  (2)  physical,  and  (3}  moral. 
INIetaphysical  evil  is  inseparable  from  finite 
existence  as  such.  Physical  evil— pain— is 
often  a  conditional  good,  either  as  i)unisli- 
ment  or  as  discipline.  3Ioral  evil  is  in  no 
Avay  chargeable  to  ^od,  but  to  the  freedom 
of  the  creature.  At  other  times  he  i-educes 
moral  evil  to  metaphysical.  By  tliese  con- 
siderations is  the  diA'ino  goodness  sought 
to  be  vindicated.    See  Evil. 

LIBERTY  OF  THE  WILL.  The 
doctrine  of  Libertarianism  is  that  the  Avill 
is  .such  a  poAver  as  makes  it  possible  to 
govem  or  control  all  the  motive  forces  of 
oui*  nature,  including  dispositions  and  pas- 
sions, so  as  to  <lcterminc  personal  conduct 
in  accordance  Avith  the  decisi<ms  of  the  un- 
dei-standing.  It  imjilics  negatively  that 
impulses  or  motive  forces  are  not  dominant 


Glossary. 


31 


in  our  life  umler  its  nonual  conditions; 
positively,  that  will  is  a^^sociated  with  in- 
telligence, and  that  together  they  are  the 
true  governing  ])Owers  in  human  life, 
every  intelligent  determination  presup- 
po?5ing  that  motives  have  Lcen  subordi- 
nated to  thouglit.  The  liberty  so  described 
is  often  named  moral  ]i];crty,  because  it  is  i 
f^pecially  illustrated  in  the  subjection  of 
our  life  to  moral  law,  and  seems  to  be  im- 
plied in  a  categorical  impeiativc.  Kant 
makes  freedom  of  will  a  deduction  from 
the  imperative  of  moral  law  (Groundwork, 
eh.  iii.).   See  Categorical  Imperative. 

LITANY  ((ilk.  Atrai^eia,  sui)plication), 
a  solemn  form  of  supi)lication  used  in  pub- 
lic worship,  cs])ecially  a  series  of  entreat- 
ies f(>r  mercy  and  deliverance  used  in  the 
morning  service  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
coi)al  Church. 

LITURGICS,  the  science  of  liturgies 
(which  see). 

LITURGY  (Grk.  Aeirovpyia,  public  wor- 
ship), the  established  formulas  for  public 
service,  or  the  entire  ritual  for  public  wor- 
ship in  those  t'hurchcs  which  use  pre- 
scribed forms.  The  liturgy  of  the  Method- 
odist  Episcopal  C'huiches  is  a  judicious 
abridgment  of  the  English,  :Mr.  Wesley 
having  omitted  ambiguous  and  redundant 
portions. 

LOCI  COMMUNES  (Theologici),  the 
commonplaces  of  theology— i.  c,  the  dog- 
mas which  form  an  essential  part  of  the 
theological  system,  and  have  ac(iuirefl  rec- 
ognizctl  and  settled  formulas  for  their 
statement  and  treatment,  "-iocr' may  be 
used  to  denote  the  fundamental  principles 
of  any  science,  and  was  therefore  incorpo- 
rated by  :Mclanchthon  in  the  title  of  his 
treatise  on  dogmatics.   '.  I.  2S.) 

LOCKE,  John  (1002-1704),  tlic  founder  of 
English  materialistic  philosophy,  sketched 
his  famous  Essaij  Concerning  Human  Un- 
derstanding in  1G70,  and  published  it  in 
final  form  in  1G90.  Locke  rejects  innate 
ideas,  and  derives  all  knowledge  from  ex- 
perience. Experience,  however,  is  two- 
fold: (1)  external  and  (2)  internal.  The  first 
fountain  of  knowledge  Locke  denominates 
Sensation,  and  the  second  Itcfleetion.  His 
works  arc  published  in  cheap  form  in  the 
BohYi  Library. 

LOGOS  ((irk. Aoyo?,  word, asusually ren- 
dered), employed  in  Christology  as  a  s])e- 
cial  name  of  Christ.  The  theological  usage 
is  a  consequence  of  its  like  employment  by 
81.  John,  especially  in  the  oi)ening  verses 
of  his  (iosi)el.  The  (Jreek  word  signifies 
both  reason  and  speech  yratio  ami  oratio). 


I 

thought  and  utterance,  mind  and  expres- 
sion.   (I.  109-208.) 

LOMBARD,  Peter  {cir.  1100-ll(>i:, 
"blaster  of  the  Sentences,"  was  the  lirst 
scholar  in  the  "West  who  collected  the 
teachings  of  theology  into  a  complete  sys- 
tem. His  Four  Books  of  Sentences  became 
the  text-book  m  the  schools  of  philosophy, 
and  was  the  foundation  of  scholastic  the- 
ology. The  work  was  first  published  in 
Venice,  1477.  John  of  Damascus,  the  "  last 
of  the  Fathers,"  had  formulated  the  theolo- 
gy of  the  Greek  Church  four  hundred  years 
before,   fl.  28.) 

LOW-CHURCH,  primarily  the  desig- 
nation of  a  party  in  the  Church  of  England 
who  ojjposed  the  Non -jurors,  or  Church- 
men who  refused  to  take  the  oath  of  alle- 
giance to  AVilliam  and  Mary  in  1(588.  The 
term  is  now  generally  applied  to  the  evan- 
gelical party  in  the  Church  of  England 
Avhich  does  not  repudiate  the  ministry  of 
non-in-elatical  Churches. 
LOYOLA,  Ignatius.  See  Jesuits. 
LUCIFERIANS,  followers  of  Lucifer, 
Bisliop  of  Cagliari,  in  the  fourth  century. 
They  would  not  allow  any  one  who  had 
been  an  Arian  to  join  them.    (II.  171.) 

LUTHER,  Martin  (US0-154G),  the  great- 
est of  the  Reformers  of  the  Church,  whose 
name  marks  a  new  era  in  the  history  of 
Europe  and  of  Christianity.  His  ninety- 
five  theses  against  indulgences  Avere  nailed 
to  the  church-door  in  Wittenberg,  October 
:;i,  1317— the  year  which  marks  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Eeformation.  December  10, 
1520,  after  the  conference  with  :Miltitz,  the 
papal  nuncio  (1519),  and  the  Leipsic  dispu- 
tation with  Dr.  Eck,  Luther  publicly  burned 
the  papal  bull  of  excomnmnication.  In 
April,  1521, he  api)eared  before  Charles  V.  at 
the  Diet  of  "Worms,  and  immediately  went 
into  retirement  at  the  "Wartburg,  where  he 
engaged  in  the  ti  anslation  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament into  German.  This  Avas  published 
in  September,  1522.  In  1525  he  took  a  firm 
stand  against  the  peasants'  war.  This  was 
also  the  year  of  the  Reformer's  marriage  to 
Catherine  Von  Bora.  At  the  Diet  of  Spires, 
in  1520,  John  of  Saxony,  George  of  Branden- 
burg, Philip  of  Hesse,  and  other  i)r:nces 
of  the  empire,  together  with  representatives 
of  free  cities,  united  in  a  protest  against  the 
re])eal  of  the  act  of  toleration  of  152G:  hence 
the  name  Protestant."  In  the  same  year 
occurred  the  Marburg  conference  with 
Zuinglius, resulting  in  nothing.  In  1530,  at 
tlie  Diet  of  Augsburg,  :Melanchthon  ]>re- 
sented  the  Augsl)urg  Confession,  Lntlier  re- 
maining at  Coljurg  under  the  ban  of  the 


32 


Glossary. 


empire.  The  Pi-otestant  princes  now  formed 
the  Smalkald  league  for  mutual  defense 
(Christmas,  loM).  The  publication  of  Lu- 
ther's complete  translation  of  the  Bible  "was 
made  in  loi'i.  His  leadership  in  the  great 
Avork  of  refoi-mation  was  acknoAvledged  by 
all,  and  he  was  consulted  by  princes  and 
clergymen,  bj'  scholars  and  jurists,  and 
even  by  the  common  people.  His  dying 
l)rayer  was:  "Heavenly  Father,  eternal, 
merciful  God,  thou  hast  revealed  to  me  thy 
dear  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Him  I 
liave  taught.  Him  I  have  confessed,  Him  I 
love  as  my  Saviour  and  Kedeemcr,  whom 
the  wicked  persecute, dishonor.and  reprove. 
Take  my  jioor  soul  up  to  thee  I " 

MACEDONIANS,  heretics  so  called 
from  ]Macedonius,  a  Bishop  of  Constantino- 
l)lc,  deposed  by  a  council  in  £60.  Their  ten- 
ets were  the  same  as  those  of  the  Pncumalo- 
machians— fighters  against  the  Spirit — who 
denied  both  the  deity  and  the  personality  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.    (I.  "2,  foot-note.) 

MAGNIFICAT,  the  song  of  :Mary,  the 
mother  of  Jesus,  beginning  My  soul  dotJi 
mof/ni/i/  the  Lord"  (Luke  i.  4()-.'r)),  and  ap- 
pointed to  be  said  or  sung  in  the  English 
liturgy  after  the  first  lesson  at  evening 
l)i-iiyer,  unless  the  Cantate  Domino  is  used. 

MANIC  HiE  ISM  (so  callcl  from 
]\Lanes,  a  Persian  ])lulosopher,  who  flour- 
ished aboxit  the  beginning  of  the  third  cent- 
ury), the  doctrine  that  there  are  two  eter- 
nal princi[)les,  the  one  good  and  the  other 
evil,  to  which  the  happiness  and  misery  of 
all  beings  may  be  traced.  It  has  been 
questioned  Avhethcr  this  doctrine  was  ever 
maintained  to  the  extent  of  denying  the 
divine  unity,  or  afiirming  that  the  system 
of  things  had  not  an  ultimate  tendency  to 
good.  It  is  said  that  the  Persians,  before 
IManes,  maintained  a  dualism  giving  the 
suinemacy  to  the  good  ])rinciple;  ]SLanes 
maintained  both  to  be  equally  eternal  and 
absolute.  The  Manichean  doctrine  was  in- 
grafted i\\)on  Christianity  about  the  middle 
of  tlie  third  century.  See  Dualism  and 
EviU  Origin  of. 

MARCIONITES,  heretics  in  the  sec- 
oiul  centui  y,  so  called  from  IMarcion.  He 
studied  the  Stoic  philosophy  in  his  y<mnger 
years,  and  was  a  lover  of  solitude  and  pov- 
ert}-,  but  Avas  exitelled  from  the  Chui-ch. 
After  this  he  went  to  Pome,  where,  being  not 
admitted  into  Church  communion  because 
liis  father  opposed  it,  he  in  spite  cmbraceil 
Cerdon's  heresy,  and  became  the  author  of 
new  heresies  in  1:34.  He  held  with  Ccrdon 
two  gods,  the  one  good  and  the  other  bad: 


the  latter,  he  said,  was  the  author  of  the 
world,  and  of  the  law ;  but  the  good,  he  said, 
was  the  author  of  the  gosi)el  and  redeemer 
of  the  world.  He  styled  himself  Jesus 
Christ,  sent  on  purpose  lo  abolish  the  law, 
as  being  bad.  Origen  alarms  that  he  sup- 
posed there  was  a  God  of  the  Jews,  a  God 
of  the  Christians,  and  a  God  of  the  Gentiles. 
Tertullian  speaks  of  nine,  aiid,  more  curi- 
ously than  anybody  else,  observes  the  rest 
of  his  opinions,  as  that  he  denied  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body,  condemned  man-iage, 
excluding  married  people  from  salvation, 
whom  he  would  not  baptize,  though  he  al- 
lowed of  three  sorts,  and  that  the  living 
were  sometimes  bai)tizeil  for  the  dead.  In 
his  sect  the  women  commonly  adminis- 
tered the  sacraments.  (11.434.) 

MARIOLATinr  (Grk.  Mapia,  Mary, 
and  Aa-rpet'a,  Avorshipi.  The  worship  of  the 
Virgin  :Nrary :  one  of  the  sins  of  the  Church 
of  Pome,  for  defending  which  her  theologi- 
ans are  guilty  of  heresy.  The  fact  of  the 
llomanists'  praying  to  the  Virgin  Mary  is 
not  denied.  Their  manner  of  doing  so,  not 
merely  seeking  her  intercession,  but  actu- 
ally addressing  her  in  terms  which  sound 
very  much  like  blasphemy  to  those  whose 
religion  is  catholic  and  scriptural,  may  be 
seen  from  the  following  exti-act  from  the 

Crown  of  the  Blessed  A'ii-gni : "  ()  thou, 
our  governor,  and  most  benignant  Lady,  in 
right  of  being  his  mother,  command  your 
most  beloved  Son,  our  Lord  Jc.-us  Christ, 
that  he  deign  to  raise  our  minds  from 
longing  after  earthly  things  to  the  contem- 
])lation  of  heavenly  things," 

MARONITES,  certain  Eastern  Chris- 
tians, so  called,  who  inhabited  near  :Mount 
Libanus,  in  Syria.  The  name  is  derived 
cither  from  a  town  in  the  country  called 
Marovin  or  from  S(.  Maron,  who  built  a 
monastery  there  in  the  ilfth  century.  The 
Maronifcs  hold  communion  Avith  the  Pom- 
ish  Church.  Pope  Gregory  Xllf.  foun.led 
a  college  at  Pome,  Avhere  their  youth  are 
educated  by  the  Jesuits,  and  then  sent  to 
their  own  country.  They  formerly  followed 
the  errors  of  the  .Jacobites,  Xestorians,  and 
:Monothelites;  but  these  they  lenounced  for 
the  errors  of  the  Poman  Church  in  the  time 
of  Gregory  XIII,  and  Clement  Vlir.  The 
patriarch  of  the  Maronifcs  wns  i)reseTit  in 
the  fourth  Lateran  Council,  under  Inno- 
cent III.,  in  ]2in.    (II.  2S3.) 

MAKTITROLOGY  (Grk.  ^dprvp,  mar- 
tyr, and  AoT-o?,  discourse),  in  the  Church  of 
Pome,  is  a  catalogue  or  list  of  martyrs,  in- 
cluding the  hi.itoi-y  of  th.eir  1  i  vcs  and  sufl'er- 
ings  for  the  sake  of  religion. 


Glossary. 


33 


MASS  (Lat.j)/issa,fioiu  mitterc,  to  send 
or  disiuisis).  liiis  woid  at  first  imported 
notliiug  more  than  the  dismissal  ol  a  Church 
assembly.  Uy  degrees  it  came  to  l)e  used 
lor  au  assembly  aud  lor  Church  service; 
aud  Irom  siguiiyiug  Church  service  iu  geu- 
eial  it  came  at  length  to  denote  the  Coni- 
viunion  Service  in  particuhir,  aud  so  that 
most  emphatically  came  to  be  called  Mass. 
Since  tlie  Ileformatiou  the  word  has  been 
universally  confined  to  express  the  form  of 
celebrating  the  communion  in  the  Romish 
Church. 

MATER  DEI,  Latin  signifying  mother 
of  God,  and  applied  to  Mary  the  mother  of 
Jesus.   See  Deipara  and  Thcotokos. 

MAUNDY  THURSDAY,  the 
Thursday  before  Easter,  being  the  day  on 
•w  hich  our  Lord  instituted  the  holy  sacra- 
ment of  his  body  and  blood.  The  name  of 
]\Ianndy,  ^Maunday.  or  ^Mandate  (Dies  Man- 
(Jatii,  is  saiil  to  have  allusion  to  the  Man- 
date or  ncM'  commandment  -which  on  this 
tiay  Christ  gave  to  his  disciples,  that  they 
should  love  one  another,  as  he  had  loved 
them.  It  has  also  been  supposed  by  others 
that  the  nau>e  arose  from  the  mannds^ov 
baskets  of  gifts,  which  at  this  time  it  was 
an  ancient  custom  for  Christians  toi)i  esent 
one  to  another,  in  token  of  that  mutual  af- 
fection which  our  Lord  so  temlerly  urged, 
at  this  i)eriod  of  liis  suflerings,  and  as  a  re- 
membrancer of  that  "inestimable  gift"  of 
Christ,  to  be  our  si)iritual  food  in  the  sacra- 
ment of  his  body  and  blood,  .'^ays  a  writer 
of  the  age  of  Wyclifle,  "Christ  made  his 
maundy  and  said.  Take,  eat,"  etc. 

MELANCHTHON,  Philip  {1407-1560), 
the  most  efiicicnt  coadjutor  of  Luther's  in 
tlie  Mork  of  reformation.  As  a  Humanist 
he  was  scarcely  inferior  to  Erasmus,  his 
scholarship  gaining  him  oafly  the  title  of 
/'receptor  Gerinanice.  At  "^itteubeig  he 
fic(iuently  lecturecl  to  two  thousand  stu- 
dents. Jn  his  i^ori  Communes  he  laul  the 
foundations  of  J'rolestaiit  dogmatics.  His 
spirit  was  i)re-eniinently  iicnical,  and  he 
thus  became  a  balance  to  Luther.  lie  never 
entered  the  ministry,  ])orforming  his  great 
work  as  a  layman. 

MEL.CHITES,  the  name  which  is  given 
to  the  Syriac,  Egyptian,  and  other  Chris- 
tians of  tlio  Levant;  who,  though  not 
Creeks,  follow  the  doctrines  and  ceremo- 
nies of  the  Greek  (  hurch,  and  submit  to  the 
decisions  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  The 
term  Metchites  is  borrowed  from  the  He- 
brew or  Syriac  word  Melee,  which  signifies 
kirifj.  So  that  :^relchite3  is  as  much  as  to 
say  Royalists,  and  is  a  tenn  of  reproach, 


given  them  by  their  adversaries,  on  account 
of  their  impucit  submission  to  the  edict  of 
the  Emperor  Marciau,  for  the  publication 
aud  reception  of  the  above-mentioned  coun- 
cil.   (II.  280.) 

MELETIANS,  so  called  from  Meletius. 
They  rejected  all  from  their  communion 
who  in  time  of  persecution  fell  from  Christ, 
though  they  afterward  repented.  Jleletius 
himself  was  a  bishop  in  Egypt,  deposed  be- 
cause he  had  sacrificed  in  the  time  of  pei-se- 
cution,  about  the  year  301.  Their  schism 
was  chiefly  on  account  of  their  ordinations 
and  the  regimen  of  the  Church;  Meletius 
assuming  to  himself  the  power  of  onlina- 
tion,  Avhen  Peter,  Bishop  of  Alexandria, 
sufl"ered  martyrdom.    (IL  171.) 

MENNONITES,  a  sect  of  Anabaptists 
in  Holland,  so  denominated  from  one  Men- 
non  Simonis  of  Frisia,  who  lived  in  the  six- 
teenth century.  The  Protestants,  as  Avell  as 
the  Romanists,  confuted  them.  Menuon, 
having  rejected  the  enthusiasms  and  reve- 
lations of  the  first  Anaba])tists  and  their 
opinions,  concerning  tlie  new  kingflom  of 
Jesus  Christ,  set  up  other  tenets,  Avhich  his 
followers  hold.  They  believe  that  the  New 
Testament  is  the  only  rule  of  our  faith;  that 
the  terms  Person  an(I  Trinity  are  not  to  be 
used  in  speaking  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost;  that  the  first  men  mcic  not 
created  just;  that  there  is  no  original  sm; 
that  Jesus  Christ  had  not  his  llcsh  from  the 
substance  of  his  mother  Mary,  but  from  the 
essence  of  his  Fatlicr;  that  it  is  not  lawful 
for  Christians  to  swear,  nor  exercise  any 
ofiice  of  magistracy,  nor  use  the  sword  to 
punish  evil-doers,  nor  to  wage  war  u[H)n 
any  terms;  that  a  Christian  may  attain  to 
the  height  of  i)erfection  in  this  life;  that  the 
ministers  of  the  gos])el  ought  not  to  receive 
any  salary;  that  children  are  not  to  be  bap- 
tized; that  the  souls  of  men  after  death  rest 
in  an  unknown  place. 

METAPHYSICS,  that  department  of 
mental  philosojjhy  which  is  concerned  with 
speculative  problems,  transcending  those 
belonging  to  the  nature  and  relations  of  the 
facts  of  consciousness.  The  speculative  de- 
partment of  philosophy,  transcending  em- 
pirical psychology.  (1)  In  earlier  Scottish 
usage  named  the  Higher  Metaphysics, 
Avhile  Psychology  was  the  Lower;  (2)  Jn 
the  Critical  Philosophy  ot  Kant,  mctai)hys- 
ics  includes  all  the  phenomena  of  conscious- 
ness which  do  not  arise  from  experience — 
the  whole  range  of  ajoriori,  in  contrast  with 
a  2>osieriori  elements,  in  consciousness. 
Kant's  application  of  the  term  has  great- 
ly nlTected  siibsequent  usage.  (3)  It  is  \ini- 


34 


Glossary, 


formly  applied  lo  tlic  speculative  dcpait- 
nicnt  of  mental  science,  including  ontology. 
The  origin  ol  the  term  is  commonly  referred 
to  Andronicusof  Rhodes,  who,  in  collecting 
the  Avorks  of  Aristotle,  inscribed  upon  a 

portion  of  them  the  words  To.  /ierd  ra  4>vcnKa. 

Whether  the  phrase  was  intended  merely  to 
indicate  that  this  portion  should  stand  aft- 
er the  physics  in  the  order  of  collected  works 
of  Aristotle, or  to  mark  the  philosophic  sig- 
uiticance  of  the  work  as  X.\\e  first philosophii 
{■npun-q  4)iXo<ro<f)ia) ,  is  iiot  clcar  (Ueberwcg's 
Hisl.^  i.  145;  Schwegler's  Ilist.^  Seelye's 
trans.,  p.  131). 

METEMPSYCHOSIS  (Grk.  /aera,  be- 
yond; e/Ln/>vxoto,  to  animate)  is  the  transmi- 
gration or  ])assage  of  the  soul  from  one  body 
to  another.  This  doctrine  implies  a  belief  in 
the  ])re-existence  and  future  life  of  the  soul. 
According  to  Herodotus,  the  Egyptians 
Avcre  the  first  to  espouse  this  doctrine.  They 
believed  that  the  soul  at  death  entered  into 
some  animal  created  at  the  moment;  and 
that,  after  having  inhabitefl  the  fornisof  all 
animals  on  earth,  in  the  water,  or  in  the 
air,  it  returned  at  the  end  of  three  thousand 
years  into  a  human  body,  to  begin  anew  a 
similar  course  of  transmigration.  Thecom- 
mon  0])inion  is  that  the  doctrine  of  trans- 
migration i)assed  from  Egypt  into  Greece. 
Pythagoras  may  have  given  more  precision 
to  the  doctrine.  It  Avas  adopted  by  riato 
and  his  followers,  and,  according  to  one  of 
St.  Jerome's  letters,  was  secretly  taught 
among  the  early  C  hristians. 

METHOD  (Grk.  /xe'9o5o?,  ^erd,  after,  ancf 
656?  way),  the  way  by  Avhich  we  proceed  to 
tlie  attainment  of  some  object.  Method 
may  be  called,  in  general,  the  art  of  disj^os- 
ing  well  a  series  of  many  thoughis^  either 
for  discovering  truth  ivhenwe  are  ignorant 
of  it,  or  for  proviit-g  it  to  others  xvhen  it  is 
already  knoivn.  Thus  there  are  two  kinds 
of  method,  one  for  discovering  truth,  which 
is  called  analysis,  ov  the  method  of  resolu- 
tion, and  which  may  also  be  called  the 
method  of  invention;  an<l  the  other  for  ex- 
plaining it  to  others  when  we  have  foimd 
it,  which  is  called  synthesis,  or  the  method 
of  composition,  and  which  may  also  be 
called  the  method  of  doctrine  {Port  Jtoyal 
Logic,  pt  iv.,  ch.  ii.). 

METHODOLOGY,  the  doctrine  of 
method  (which  see).   (1.  10,  foot-note.) 

METROPOLITAN,  the  bishop  who 
l)residc3  over  the  other  bishops  of  a  prov- 
ince. The  writers  of  the  Latin  Clmrch  use 
])romiscuously  the  words  archbishop  and 
mctroi)olitan,  making  cither  name  denote  a 
bishop,  who,  by  virtue  of  his  see,  presides 


over  or  governs  several  other  bishops. 
Thus,  in  England,  the  Archbishops  of  Can- 
terbury and  York  are  both  metropolitans. 
But  the  Greeks  use  the  name  only  to  denote 
him  whose  see  is  really  a  civil  metropolis. 

MICHAEL  (Ileb.  TF7io  is  like  God),  the 
name  of  an  archangel  who  in  Daniel  is  de- 
scribed as  having  special  charge  of  the  Is- 
raelites.   (I.  2SG-2S3.) 

MILITANT  (Lat.  militans,  fighting), 
a  term  applied  to  the  Church  on  earth,  as 
engaged  in  a  Avarfare  with  the  Avorld,  sin, 
and  the  devil,  in  distinction  from  the 
Church  triumphant  in  heaven. 

MILL,  John  Stuart  (lSOO-1873),  son  of 
James  (1770-1S3G),  Avho  began  his  eon's  erlu- 
cation  by  teaching  him  the  Greek  alphabet 
at  the  age  of  three.  He  read  Plato  before 
he  Avas  eight.  As  Mill's  Avii tings  are  not 
distinguished  for  richrress  of  historical  or 
literary  allusion,  it  is  a  fair  inference  that 
his  classical  reading  at  this  age  Avas  of  lit- 
tle service,  and  he  never  became  an  exact 
scholar  in  the  academic  sense.  Mill  Avas 
deliberately  educated  as  an  apostle  of 
l  easoned  tnith.  In  1823,  at  the  age  of  sev- 
enteen, he  entered  the  service  of  the  British 
i  East  India  Company,  from  1S3G  to  18oo  hav- 
I  ing  charge  of  its  relations  Avith  native 
States,  and  continuing  in  the  service  to  the 
company's  dissolution  in  1858.  In  his  West- 
minster review  of  "Whately's  Logic  (1823)  he 
appeal's,  curiously  enough,  as  an  ardent 
and  brilliant  champion  of  the  eyllogistic 
logic.  It  Avas  not  until  1837,  on  reading 
AVliewell's  Inductive  Sciences  and  reread- 
ing Ilerschel,  that  Mill  saAv  his  Avay  clcar 
to  joining  on  the  ncAV  inductive  logic  as 
a  supplement  to  the  old.  His  great  Logic 
Avas  not  published  until  1843.  The  Political 
Economy  appeared  m  1848,  and  the  Exam- 
ination of  Sir  W.  Hamilton's  Philosophy 
in  ISGo.  These  are  Mill's  greatest  and  most 
influential  Avorks,  and  constitute  his  main 
title  to  enduring  fame.  He  is  unquestion- 
ably the  ablest  of  British  anti-intuitional 
philosophers,  and  stands  beside  Sir  "\V. 
Hamilton,  the  tAvo  being  the  colossal  figures 
in  British  philosophy  Avithin  the  limits  of 
the  present  century. 

MILLENAHIANS  (and  MILLEN- 
NIUM), a  name  Avhich  is  given  to  those 
who  believe  that  Christ  Avill  reign  person- 
ally for  a  thousand  years  upon  earth,  their 
designation  being  derived  from  the  Latin 
Avords,  mille,  a  thousand,  and  annus,  a 
year.  In  the  Avords  of  GrcsAvell,  Ave  may 
define  their  doctrine  and  expectation,  gen- 
erally, as  the  belief  of  a  second  personal  ad- 
vent or  return  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 


Glossary. 


35 


some  time  before  llie  end  of  the  present 
state  of  things  on  the  earth;  a  resurrection 
of  a  part  of  the  dead  in  the  body,  concur- 
rently mi  Lli  that  return;  the  establislmient 
of  a  kingdom  for  a  certain  length  of  time 
upon  earth,  of  Avhich  Jesus  Christ  Avill  be 
the  sovereign  head;  and  the  good  and  holy 
men  who  livcfl  under  tlie  3Iosaic  dispensa- 
tion before  the  gospel  era,  or  have  lived  un- 
der the  Christian  since,  whether  previous- 
ly raised  to  life  or  found  alive  in  the  flesh 
at  the  time  of  the  return,  Avill  be  the  sub- 
ject.s,  and  in  some  manner  or  other  admitted 
to  a  share  of  its  privileges. 

MIHACLB  (Lat.  riiiracnlum,irow\  mi- 
rari,  to  Avondcr)  is  an  event  produced  by 
the  special  interposition  of  the  i)owor  of 
God,  in  sensible  contravention  of  the  estab- 
lished laws  of  natni'o,  for  the  confirmation 
of  some  truth  or  the  divine  legation  of  some 
l)crson.  (T.  472.)  The  scriptural  idea  of 
miracles  may  be  gathered  from  the  three 
Greek  terms  applied  to  them  (Acts  ii.  22 
and  lleb.  ii.  4) :  repa?,  wondei*;  oTj/neroi/,  sign ; 
and  Sui'a/u.t?,  power.  A  miracle  is  thus  a 
woudcr,  or  prodigy  designed  to  arrest  at- 
tention: a  pou'cr^  or  a  mighty  work  i)ro- 
duced  by  supernatural  energy;  and  as/Vy??, 
or  demonstration  of  a  truth  to  be  confirmed. 
(I.  472-4,S3.) 

IIISSAIj  (see  J/as.s).  In  the  liomish 
Church,  a  book  containing  the  services  of 
the  mass  for  the  various  days  of  the  year. 
In  the  ancient  Church  the  several  parts  of 
divine  service  Avcre  arranged  in  distinct 
books.  Thus  tlic  collects  and  the  invaria- 
ble portion  of  the  communion  ofilce  formed 
the  book  called  the  Racramentary.  The  les- 
sons from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  con- 
stituted the  Lectionary,  and  the  Gospels 
made  another  volume,  with  the  title  of 
Evangelisterium.  The  Antiphonary  con- 
sisted of  anthems,  etc.,  designed  for  chant- 
ing. 

HOIiECUIjE  (Lat.  molecular  a  little 
mass),  as  distinguisheil  from  atom^  is  the 
smallest  particle  of  matter  (elementary  or 
comjiound)  which  can  exist  in  a  free  state. 
The  molecule  of  an  element  consists  of  sim- 
ilar atoms.  The  molecule  of  a  compoimd 
body  consists  of  dissimilar  atoms. 

MONERGISM  (Grk. /mdi/o?,  sole,  and 
epyeiv,  to  work),  a  term  descriptive  of  the 
Calvinistic  or  Augustinian  doctrine  of  i  c- 
generation,  according  to  which  man  does 
not  co-operate  with  God  in  the  process  of 
salvation,  the  Deity  being  the  sole  agent, 
Avorking  when,  Avhere,  an<l  how  he  will.  It 
is  opi)Osed  to  Synergism  (Avhich  sec).  (I. 
44,  foot-note.) 


MONISM  (Grk.  |xdi/os,  sole  or  single), 
the  theory  of  the  unity  of  all  being.  There 
are  three  phases  of  Monism:  (1)  Idealistic, 
(2)  Materialistic,  (3)  Tantheistic.  The  fun- 
damental question  involved  is  the  true  in- 
terpi'etation  of  consciousness  as  inA'olving 
a  contrast  between  subjective  and  objective 
existence.    (See  Idealism.) 

MONOGENES  (Grk.  /ixoi/ovet^?,  Lat. 
unigenitus,  only-begotten),  a  title  of  Christ, 
used  by  St.  John  alone,  and  denoting 
Christ's  natural,  proper,  necessary,  and 
unique  filiation.  (1.171-177.) 

MONOPHYSITES  (Grk.  t^ouo^,  sole, 
and  <^)uo-is,  nature).  A  general  name  given 
to  all  those  sectaries  in  the  Levant  who  only 
own  one  nature  in  our  blessed  Savionr,  and 
Avho  maintain  that  the  divine  and  hujnan 
natures  of  Jesus  Christ  were  so  united  as 
to  f<n-m  only  one  nature,  yet  without  any 
change,  confusion,  or  mixture  of  the  two 
natures.    (I.  200.) 

MONOTHEISM  (Grk.  /udi^o?,  0e6s,  one 
(.iod),  the  belief  that  God  is  cssicntially  one. 

MONOTHELilTES,  Christian  heretics 
in  tlie  seventh  centurj  ,  so  called  from  tlie 
Greek  words  /xoi/o?,  one,  and  fleArj^a,  Avill,  be- 
cause they  maintained  that,  though  there 
were  two  natures  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  hu- 
raan  and  the  divine,  there  was  but  one  will, 
which  was  the  divine. 

MORPHOLOGY  (Grk.  mop-^"},  form; 
Aoyo?,  df)Cti-ine) .  The  term  Morpholuc/y^  in  - 
troduced  by  Goethe  to  denote  the  study  of  the 
unity  of  type  in  organic  form  (for  Avhich  the 
Linnican  term  Metamorphosis  had  former- 
ly been  employed),  now  usually  covers  the 
entire  science  of  organic  form  (art.  Mor- 
phology, by  r.  Geddes,  in  Encyclopcedia 
Britannica,  9th  ed.  See  Spencer,  Principles 
of  Biology,  i.). 

MYTH  (Grk.  ju-C^os,  a  tale,  a  fictitious  or 
conjectural  narrative).  A  myih  is  a  nar- 
rative framed  for  the  purpose  of  expressing 
some  general  truth,  law  of  nature,  moral 
phenomenon,  or  religious  idea,  the  tliffer- 
ent  phases  of  Avhich  correspond  to  the  turn 
of  the  narrative.  The  early  history  and 
the  early  religion  of  all  nations  are  full  of 
fables.  Hence  it  is  that  myths  have  been 
divided  into  the  traditional  and  the  theolog- 
ical, or  the  historical  and  the  religious.  (I. 
310,  foot-note.) 

NATURALISM,  the  name  given  to 
those  systems  of  the  philosophy  of  nature 
which  explain  all  phenomena  by  a  blind 
force  acting  necessarily,  maintaining  that 
natiire  carries  within  itself  its  oavu  expla- 
nation.  It  is  characteristic  of  all  material- 


36 


Glossary. 


istic  systems,  e.  g.^  those  of  the  ancient 
Atomists,  and  those  of  tlie  French  Materi- 
alists of  ihQ  Illumination  in  modern  philos- 
ophy. 

NEOLOGrY  (Grk.  ve'os,  new;  Xoyo?,  doc- 
trine). This  term,  which  &iguifies  neio  doc- 
trine^ has  been  used  to  designate  a  species 
of  theology  and  Biblical  criticism  Avhich 
has  of  late  years  much  prevailed  among  the 
Protestant  divines  of  Germany  and  the  pro- 
fessors of  German  universities.  It  is  now, 
however,  more  freciuently  termed  Rational- 
ism, and  is  supposed  to  occupy  a  sort  of 
middle  place  between  the  orthodox  system 
and  pure  Deism.  In  current  theological  lit- 
erature the  term  neology  is  applied  to  any 
novel  teaching  Avhatcver. 

NEONOMIANISM  (Grk.  ve'os,  new, 
and  vofios,  law).  This  is  not  the  appellation 
of  a  separate  sect,  but  of  those  both  among 
Arminians  and  Calvinists  who  regard 
Christianity  as  a  new  law,  mitigated  in  its 
requisitions  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  This 
opinion  has  many  modifications,  and  has 
been  held  by  persons  very  greatly  differing 
from  each  other  in  the  consequences  to 
which  they  carry  it,  and  in  the  principles 
from  which  they  deduce  it.  One  opinion  is, 
t'.iat  the  ncTT  corcnant  of  grace  whicli. 
through  the  medium  of  Christ's  death,  the 
Father  made  with  men  consists,  according 
to  this  system,  not  in  our  being  justified  by 
faith,  as  it  apprehends  the  atonement  of 
Christ;  but  in  this,  that  God,  abrogating 
the  exaction  of  perfect  legal  obedience,  re- 
putes or  accepts  of  faith  itself,  and  the  im- 
perfect obedience  of  faith,  insteafl  of  the 
perfect  obeilience  of  the  law,  and  g)-aciousl\- 
accounts  them  worthy  of  the  reward  of  eter- 
nal life.  Toward  the  close  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  a  controversy  was  agitated 
anipng  the  Fnglish  Dissenters,  in  which  the 
one  side,  who  were  pailial  to  the  writings 
of  Dr.  Crisp,  were  charged  with  Antinomi- 
anism,  and  the  other,  Avho  favored  those  of 
:Mr.  Baxter,  were  accused  of  Neonomianism. 
Dr.  Daniel  "Williams  was  a  principal  writer 
on  what  was  called  thc^'eonomian  side. 

NESTORIANS,  the  followers  of  Xes- 
toriiis,  a  bi.sho;»  of  Constantinople,  who 
live<l  in  the  fifth  century.  They  believeil 
that  in  Christ  there  were  not  only  two  nat- 
ures, but  two  i)ersons;  of  which  the  one 
■was  divine,  the  Eternal  AVord,  and  the 
otlier,  wliich  was  human,  was  the  man 
Jesus;  tliat  these  two  persons  had  only  one 
axpecl;  that  the  union  between  the  Son  of 
God  an<l  the  Son  of  man  was  formed  in  the 
moment  of  tlie  Vii'gin's  conception,  and  Avas 
never  to  be  dissolved;  that  it  was  not,  how- 


ever, a  union  of  nature  or  of  person,  but 
only  of  will  and  affection;  that  Christ  was 
therefore  to  be  carefully  distinguishetl  from 
God,  who  dwelt  in  him  as  in  his  temple; 
and  that  Mary  was  to  be  called  the  mother 
of  Christ,  and  not  the  mother  of  God.  (1. 197, 
198,  200,  201.) 

NIC-ffiA,  Council  of.   See  Arianism. 

NOMINALISM  (Lat.  nomen,  a  name) 
is  the  doctrine  that  general  notions  have  no 
objective  realities  corresponding  to  them, 
and  have  no  existence  but  as  names  or 
words.  The  doctrine  directly  opposed  to  it 
is  Realism.  To  the  intermediate  doctrine 
of  Concept ualism  (which  see)  Nominalism 
is  closely  allied.    (II.  43.) 

NON-CONFORMISTS,  dissenters 
from  the  Church  of  England;  but  the  term 
applies  more  particularly  to  those  ministers 
who  were  ejected  from  their  livings  by  the 
Act  of  Uniformity  in  1662,  the  number  of 
Avhom,  according  to  Dr.  Calamy,  was  near- 
ly two  thousand;  and  to  the  laity  who  ad- 
hered to  them. 

NON  SEaUITUR  (Lat.  U  does  not  fol- 
low; the  inference  is  not  necessary),  an 
inconclusive  inference. 

NOVATIANS,  tlie  followers  of  Xova- 
tian,  a  priest  of  Borne,  and  Xovatus,  a  priest 
of  Carthage,  in  the  third  century.  They 
were  distinguished  merely  by  their  disci- 
pline,for  thcirreligious  and  doctrinal  tenets 
do  not  appear  to  be  at  all  different  from  those 
of  the  Church.  They  condemned  sccon<I 
marriages,  and  forever  excluded  from  their 
communion  all  those  who  after  baptism  had 
fallen  into  sin.  They  affected  very  su])e- 
rior  purity;  and,  though  they  conceived 
that  the  worst  might  possibly  hope  for  eter- 
nal life,  they  absolutely  refused  to  re-admit 
into  their  communion  any  who  had  lapsed 
into  sin.  They  separated  from  the  Church 
of  Borne  because  the  members  of  it  admit- 
ted into  their  communion  many  who  had, 
during  a  season  of  persecution,  rejected  the 
Christian  faith.    (II.  IG.',  171.) 

NUNC  DIMITTIS,  the  first  Avoids  in 
Latin  of  the  Song  of  Simeon,  "  Lord,  now 
lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart  in  ])eacc," 
api)ointed  as  one  of  the  hymns  to  be  used 
after  the  second  lesson  at  evening  prayer.^It 
Avas  used  in  this  i)lace  in  the  most  ancient 
times.  It  is  found  in  the  Apostolical  Con- 
stitutions. And  even  at  the  ])resent  day 
this  hymn  is  rcpeateil  at  evening  jjrayer  in 
the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople. 

OBSIGNATION  (Lat.  ohsignatio,  the 
act  of  sealing),  the  act  of  sealing  or  state  of 


Glossary. 


37 


being  sealed  or  confirmed;  used  especially 
of  sealing  by  the  Holy  Spirit.    (11.  295.) 

OCCASIONAL  CAUSES,  Doctrine  of. 
See  Causes^  Occasional. 

OMNIPOTENCE  (Lat.  omnis,  all,  and 
'poienti^  powerful),  almightiuess ;  the  infi- 
nite i)o\ver  of  Deity.   (1.  82.) 

OMNIPRESENCE  (Lat.  omnin,  all, 
and  prcesens,  present),  ubi(iuity;  that  at- 
tribute of  (jod  by  which  he  is  simultaneous- 
ly present  in  all  places. 

OMNISCIENCE  (Lat.  onmis,  all,  and 
SCUT,  to  know),  the  all-embracing  or  infi- 
nite knowledge  of  God,  including  things 
past,  i»resent,  and  future,  necessary  and 
contingent,  actual  and  possible.    (L  85.) 

ONTOL.OGICAL.  ARGUMENT  for 
the  existence  of  Clod  is  the  attempt  to  prove 
from  a  priori  considerations  alone  the  nec- 
essary existence  of  Deity.  For  the  several 
forms  of  the  argument  as  stated  by  Anselm, 
DCS  Cartes,  S.  Clarke,  and  Cousin,  see  I. 
5:3-56.   See  Anselm  and  A  priori. 

ONTOLOGIC AL.  PROCESSION. 
See  Procession. 

ONTOLOGY  (Grlv.  ov,  being,  and  Aoyos, 
discourse),  the  science  of  Being— Metaphys- 
ics. The  name  ontoloy  seems  to  have  been 
first  made  current  in  philosophy  by  Wolfl", 
He  divided  metaphysics  into fourparts—on- 
tology,  rational  i)sychology,  rational  cos- 
niology,  and  rational  tlicology.  Ontology 
-waschicfly  occupied  with  abstract  inciuiries 
into  possibility,  necessity,  and  contingency, 
substance,  accident,  cause.ctc, -vvithout.rcf- 
erence  to  the  laws  of  our  intellect  by  which 
wc  are  constrained  to  l)elieve  in  them.  On- 
tology IS  thus  the  science  of  principles  and 
causes,  that  is  of  the  principles  and  causes 
of  being. 

OPTIMISM  (Lat.  op/tm(/?n,  the  best),  the 
doctrine  that  the  universe,  being  the  Avoik 
of  an  infinitely  perfect  Being,  is  the  best 
that  could  be  created.  This  doctrine,  under 
various  forms,  appeared  in  all  the  great 
philosophical  schools  of  antiquity.  During 
the  ]Middlc  Ages  it  Avas  advocated  by  St. 
Anselm  and  St.  Thomas.  In  times  compar- 
atively modern  it  was  embraced  by  Dcs 
Cartes  and  Malebranche,  and  has  been  de- 
veloped in  its  highest  form  by  Leibnitz. 
According  to  him,  God,  being  infinitely  per- 
fect, could  neither  will  nor  produce  evil. 
And  as  a  less  good  compared  with  a  greater 
is  evil,  the  creation  of  God  must  not  only  be 
good,  but  the  best  that  could  possibly  be. 
Before  creation,  all  beings  and  all  possible 
conditions  of  things  were  present  to  the  Di- 
vine IMind  in  idea,  and  composed  an  infi- 
nite number  of  worlds,  from  among  which 


infinite  wisdom  chose  the  best.  Creation 
was  the  giving  existence  to  the  most  i)er- 
fect  state  of  things  which  liad  been  ideally 
contemplated  by  the  Divine  Mind. 

ORDO  SALUTIS,  a  Latin  phrase  sig- 
nifying order  of  salvation,  and  used  to  des- 
ignate the  sequence  of  the  several  steps 
from  a  state  of  sin  to  a  state  of  grace  in  the 
case  of  an  individual  believer.  The  Cal- 
vinistic  ordo  is:  (1)  Regeneration,  (2)  Faith, 
(3)  Repentance,  and  (4)  Justification.  The 
Arminian  is  as  follows:  (1)  Repentance,  (2) 
Faith,  (3)  fTustification,  and  (4)  Regenera- 
tion.   (II.  118-120.) 

ORGANON  or  ORGANUM  (Grk.  op- 
yavov,  an  instrument),  is  the  name  often  ap- 
plied to  a  collection  of  Aristotle's  treatises 
on  logic;  because,  by  the  Peripatetics,  logic 
was  regarded  as  the  instrument  of  science 
rather  than  as  itself  a  science  or  part  of 
science.  In  the  sixth  century,  Ammonius 
and  Simplicins  arranged  the  works  of  Aris- 
totle in  classes,  one  of  Avhich  they  called 
logical  or  organical.  But  it  was  not  till  the 
fifteenth  century  that  the  name  Ch-ganum 
came  into  common  use.  Bacon  gave  the 
name  of  Novum  Organum  to  the  second 
part  of  his  Tnstauralio  Magna.  And  the 
German  philosopher,  Lambert,  in  17(53,  pub- 
lished a  logical  work  under  the  title  Das 
Neue  Organon.  The  Organon  of  Aristotle 
consists  of  the  following  treatises:  The  Cat- 
gorics.,  the  De  Interjoreiatione.,  the  Analyt- 
ics., Prior  and  Posterior.,  the  Topics.,  and 
the  Sophistical  Refutations.  "The  0?-(7«- 
9iOH  of  Aristotle,  and  the  Or</a?n/?7i  of  Bacon 
stand  in  relation,  but  the  relation  of  contra- 
riety; the  one  considers  the  laws  under 
Avhich  the  sul)ject  thinks,  the  other  the  laws 
under  Avhich  the  object  is  to  be  known."— 
Hamilton. 

ORIGEN  (185-254)  was  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  among  the  early  Christian 
Avriters,  Avhom  Jerome  calls  a  man  of  im- 
mortal genius,  Avho  understood  logic,  geom- 
etry, arithmetic,  music,  grammar,  i  hetoric, 
and  all  the  sects  of  the  philosophers."  He 
maybe  regarded  as  the  father  of  Biblical 
criticism  and  exegesis.  In  203  Bishop  De- 
metrius placed  him  in  charge  of  the  Alex- 
andrian catechetical  school  left  vacant  by 
the  flight  of  Clement,  Avhose  instructions 
Origen  had  enjoyed.  In  211  he  visited 
Rome,  in  215  retired  from  Alexandria  to 
Palestine,  and  in  228  Avas  ordained  presby- 
ter at  Caesarea  by  Theocritus.  At  Cajsarea, 
Origen  opened  a  new  school  of  i)hilosoi)by 
and  theology,  Avhich  soon  outshone  that  of 
Alexandria.  "When  about  sixty  years  of 
age  he  permitted  his  discourses  to  be  taken 


38 


Glossari/, 


flown  ill  short-hjind,  an<l  in  this  way  more 
than  a  IhousaiKl  of  liis  homilies  have  been 
piesei  vcd.  One  of  his  greatest -works  ^vas 
Ihe  ITerapla  (which  s-ee).  Ki)ii)lianius  and 
Rnflnus  put  the  total  of  his  works  as  six 
thousand.  Seven  secretaries  and  seven 
copyists,  aided  by  an  iincertaiu  number  of 
young  women,  arc  said  by  Eusebius  always 
to  have  been  at  work  for  him.  "  Origen," 
says  an  authority,  "is  one  among  the  few 
A\iio  have  graced  the  annals  of  our  race,  by 
standing  up  as  a  living  definition  of  what 
is  meant  by  a  man  of  genius,  learning,  pie- 
ty, and  energy."  lie  is  universally  consid- 
ered one  of  the  most  laborious  and  learned 
scholars  that  has  appeared  in  Christendom, 
and  although  his  orthodoxy  has  been  im- 
jiugncd  on  some  im[)ortant  points,  his  fame 
and  influence  will  endure  to  the  end,  and 
his  memory  be  revered  among  all  Chris- 
tian nations. 

ORIGIN  Ali  SIN  "  standeth  not  in  the 
following  of  Adam  (as  the  Pelagians  do 
vainly  talk),  but  it  is  the  corruption  of  the 
nature  of  every  man,  that  naturalh'  is  en- 
gendered of  the  ofTspring  of  Adam,  where- 
by man  is  very  far  gone  from  original  l  iglit- 
eousness,  and  of  his  own  nature  inclined  to 
evil,  and  that  continually."    (II.  45-47.) 

OSTIAB-II  (Lat.  door-Jcecpcrs)^  in  the 
ancient  Church  a  class  of  oHicers  forming 
the  lowest  of  the  clerical  orders.  Their  du- 
ties finally  became  substantially  those  of 
the  modern  sexton.    (II.  330.) 

PALEYj'U'illiam  (1743-lSOo),  an  eminent 
English  divine  and  philosopher,  took  his 
bachelor's  degi-ee  at  Cambridge  in  1703,  be- 
came a  fellow  in  1766,  was  ordaine<l  priest 
in  1707,  married  1776,  became  Archdeacon  of 
Carlisle  in  17S2,  and  chancellor  of  the  dio- 
cese in  17S3.  His  most  important  woi'ks  arc 
Moved  and  Political  Philosophy  (ITiSu) ;  IIo- 
rce  Paulince,  or  the  TriUh  of  the  Sa-ipture 
History  of  St.  Paul  evinced  by  a  Compari- 
son of  the  Epistles  which  bear  his  Xame 
with  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.,  and  tcith  one 
anotlicr  (1790);  Evidences  of  Christianity 
(1704; ;  and  Xatural  Theology  (1802) .  If  his 
treatise  on  morals  cannot  be  TCgarded  as  a 
])rofoundly  pliilosoiihical  Avoik,  it  is  cer- 
tainly clear  and  sensible.  "  Paley's  defini- 
tion of  virtue,"  says  Dr.  Blackie,  "as  the 
doing  good  to  mankind  in  obedience  to  the 
will  of  God,  for  the  sake  of  everlasting  hap- 
Ijiness,  characterizes  the  man,  the  age,  the 
country,  and  the  profession  to  which  he  be- 
longed, admirably.  It  is  a  definition  that, 
taken  as  a  matter  of  fact,  in  all  likelihood 
expressed  the  feelings  of  nine  hundred  and 


ninety-nine  outof  everyone  thousand  Ilrit- 
ish  Christians  living  in  the  generation  im- 
mediately iireceding  th.e  French  devolu- 
tion." (Four  Phascsof  Morals,  p.^OS.)  The 
aim  of  the  ITorce  Paulince  is  to  prove  b\*the 
number  and  variety  of  "undesigned  coinci- 
dences" the  impossibility  of  the  usual  infi- 
del hypothesis  of  his  time  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament is  a  cunningly-devised  fable.  The 
Evidences  of  Christianity  has  been  repub- 
lished seventeen  times  in  twenty -seven 
years,  and  is  still  largely  in  use  as  a  text- 
book. The  most  extensively  popular  of  all 
his  Avorks  is  the  Xatural  Theology^  which  is 
one  of  the  most  convincing  and  interesting 
of  design  arguments.  A  comjilete  edition 
of  Paley's  works  (1  vol.  8vo),  with  Life,  was 
published  at  Philadelphia  in  1850  by  Crissy 
and  Maikley. 

PALIMPSEST  (Grk.  TraAt>./n}^Tos, 
scratched  or  scraped  again),  a  MS.  whic4i 
has  been  Avritten  upon  tAvice,  the  first  Avrit- 
ing  having  been  erased  to  make  place  for 
the  second. 

PALM  SUNDAY,  the  Sunday  next  be- 
fore Easter,  so  called  from  palm-branches 
being  strcAved  on  the  road  by  the  multitude 
Avhen  our  Saviour  made  his  triumphal  entry 
into  Jerusalem. 

PANTHEISM  (Gi-k.  TrSs,  all ;  0£o?,  God). 
Pantheism.,  strictly  speaking,  is  the  doc- 
trine of  the  necessary  anrl  eternal  co-exist- 
ence of  the  finite  and  the  infinite;  of  the  ab- 
solute consubstantiality  of  God  and  nature, 
considered  as  two  difTerent  but  inseparable 
asjjcctsof  universal  existence.  It  may  take 
cither  of  tAVO  forms.  The  higher  is  the  ab- 
sorption of  all  things  in  God  (Acosmism); 
the  lower,  the  absorption  of  God  in  all 
things,  Avhich  is  practically  Atheism.  In 
both  forms  it  sacrifices  the  notions  of  Per- 
sonality, Freedom,  and  Moral  I^csponsibil- 
ity. 

PARABOLANI  (Lat.),  in  the  ancient 
Christian  Church,  Avere  certain  officers  de- 
puted to  attend  upon  the  sick,  and  to  take 
care  of  them  all  the  time  of  their  weakness. 
(II.  330.) 

PARACLETE  (Grk.  Trapa/cAr/To;,  f  rom 
TrapaxaAeit',  to  exhort,  to  encourage),  an  ad- 
vocate; one  called  to  aid  or  supi)ort;  hence 
the  Consoler,  Comforter,  or  Intercessor. 
The  name  is  api)lied  in  the  Scriptures  both 
to  Cluist  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  in  theol- 
ogy almost  exclusively  to  the  Spirit.  (I. 
393-305.) 

PARADISE,  according  to  the  original 
meaning  of  the  term,  Avhether  it  be  of  Ile- 
brcAV,  Chaldee,or  Persian  derivation,  signi- 
fies, "  a  place  inclosed  for  pleasure  and  de- 


Glossary. 


39 


light."  The  LXX.,  or  Greek  translators  of 
the  01(1  Testament,  make  use  of  the  v»ord 
paradise  when  they  speak  of  the  Garden  of 
Eden,  wliich  Jeliovah  planted  at  the  crea- 
tion, and  in  M  hich  he  placed  our  fust  par- 
ents. There  are  three  places  in  the  Hebrew 
text  of  the  Old  Testament  where  this  word 
is  found,  namely,  Xeh,  ii.  8;  Cant.  iv.  Y.\\ 
Eccles.  ii.  The  term  paradise  is  obvious- 
ly used  in  the  New  Testament  as  another 
word  for  heaven;  by  our  Lord,  Luke  xxiii. 
43;  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  2  Cor.  xii.  4;  and 
in  the  Apocalypse,  ii.  7.   (I.  345-347.) 

PAHADOX  (Grk.  Trapa,  66^a,  beyond,  or 
contrary  to  appearance),  an  utterance 
wearing  the  semblance  of  incongruity,  yet 
cai)al)lo  of  being  interpreted  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  gain  assent.  E.  g.,  IJutler's  par- 
a<Iox:  Even  fi-om  self-love  Ave  should  en- 
deavor to  overcome  all  inordinate  regard 
and  consideration  of  ourselves;  or  the  par- 
adox of  Hedonism:  Happiness  is  the  end; 
but  if  we  aim  directly  at  happiness,  we 
miss  it  (c/.  drill's  Utilitarianism^  23). 

PAHALOGISM  (Grk.  irapaKoyLcrixo^, 
from  TTapaAoYi'^ojuai,  to  reason  wiongly)  is  a 
formal  fallacy  or  pseudo-syllogism,  in  which 
the  conclusion  does  not  follow  from  the 
premises,  and  the  reasoner  is  himself  de- 
ceived. It  is  distinguished  from  the  Soph- 
ism^ which  is  a  fallacy  recognized  by  the 
reasoner  and  intended  to  deceive. 

PASCALi,  Blaise  (1G23-1GG2),  a  remarka- 
ble man,  Avhose  intellect  has  been  adjudged 
by  some  the  most  perfect  ever  allotted  to 
a  member  of  the  human  race.  He  was 
acnte,  learned,  clo(iucnt,  and  virtuous.  At 
sixteen  he  is  saiil  to  have  composed  a  trea- 
tise on  Conic  Sections  v;\\n'\\  extorted  the 
admiration  of  Des  Cartes,  and  at  nineteen 
he  invented  hlscalcnlating  machine.  Hav- 
ing fully  identified  himself  Avith  Jansenism 
(which  see), he  took  up  his  i-esidence  at  Port 
Poyal  in  lOol.  In  his  Pensecs  he  aimed  to 
show  the  necessity  of  a  divine  revelation 
and  to  prove  the  truth,  reality,  and  a<lvan- 
tage  of  the  Christian  religion.  In  his  fa- 
mous Provincial  Letters  he  assailed'  the 
Jesuits  with  equal  wit  and  argumentative 
acumen.  These  two  are  the  best  knowu  of 
hisAvorks.    See  Jesuits. 

PATER  NOSTER  (Lat.  Our  Father), 
the  common  name  for  the  Lord's  Prayer  in 
the  l?omnn  Catholic  Church.    (II.  2S8.) 

PATRIPASSIANS  (Lat.  pater,  fa- 
ther; />«//,  passtis,  to  suffer),  followers  of 
Praxeas,  a  Montanist  of  the  second* cent- 
ury, who  held  that  the  Son  and  Spirit  are 
only  modes  of  operation  of  the  one  Divine 
Person.    The   sufferings  of   Christ  Avere 


therefore  the  sufferings  of  the  Father: 
hence  the  name  of  these  heretics.  See  8a- 
bellians  and  Thcopaschites. 

PATRISTICS  (Lat.  j)«^er,  father),  the 
science  Avhich  investigates  the  teachings  of 
the  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church.  (L 
515-519.) 

PEARSON,  John  (1G12-1686),  a  celebrat- 
ed English  i)rolatc,  and  one  of  the  most 
learned  divines  of  his  age,  took  the  degree 
of  M.A.  at  Cambridge  in  1G39, became  minis- 
ter of  St.  Clement's,  London,  in  1G50,  and  in 
lGo9  publisheil  the  great  Avork  so  often  quot- 
ed by  Dr.  Summers,  An  Exposition  of  the 
Apostles''  Creed.  It  Avas  republislied  Avith 
the  author's  corrections  in  167G,  and  again 
in  1G86.  It  is  used  as  a  text-book  at  the 
universities,  and  is  regarded  as  one  of  the 
lirincipal  standards  of  appeal  in  doctrine  in 
the  Church  of  England.  It  is  generally  ac- 
knoAvledged  to  be  one  of  the  most  remark- 
able productions  of  Avhat  is  usually  called 
the  greatest  age  of  English  theology— the 
seventeentli  century.  Dr.  Pearson  was 
made  Bishop  of  Chester  in  1G73.  (D.  Aj)- 
pleton  &  Co.,  New  York,  publish  Pearson 
On  the  Creed.,  edited  by  Dobson.) 

PEDOBAPTISM  (Grk.  Trak,  a  child, 
and  /SaTTTt'^o*,  to  baptize).  The  baptism  of 
childi-en. 

PELAGIUS  Avas  a  British  monk,  of 
some  rank  and  very  exalted  reimtation. 
He,  AVith  his  friend  Celestius,  traveled  to 
Rome,  where  they  resided  very  early  in  the 
fifth  century,  and  opposed  Avith  Avarmth 
certain  received  notions  respecting  original 
sin  and  the  necessity  of  divine  grace. 
What  reception  their  doctrines  met  Avith  at 
Pome  does  not  appear;  but  their  virtue  ex- 
cited general  approbation.  On  the  ap- 
proach of  the  Goths,  they  retired  to  Africa, 
Avhcrc  Celestius  remained,  Avith  a  vicAV  of 
gaining  admittance  as  a  presbyter  into  the 
Church  of  Carthage.  Pelagius  proceeded 
to  Palestine,  Avhere  he  enjoyed  the  favor 
and  protection  of  John,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem. 
But  his  frielid  and  his  opinions  met  Avilh  a 
very  different  reception  from  St,  Augnstin, 
the  celebrated  Bishop  of  Hippo.  Whatever 
parts  Avere  visited  by  these  unorthodox 
friends,  they  still  asserted  their  peculiar 
opinions;  and  they  Avere  gradually  en- 
gaged in  aAvarm  contest,  in  the  course  of 
Avhich  thevAvere  probably  led  to  advance 
more  than  had  originally  occurred  to  them. 
For  the  errors  attributed  to  Pelagius,  see 
II.  in. 

PERIPATETIC  (Grk.  TreptTraTew,  tO 

walk  about),  is  applied  to  Aristotle  and  his 
folloAvers,  who  seem  to  have  carried  on  their 


40 


Glossanj. 


philosophical  discussions  Avhile  wulkinjj 
about  in  the  halls  and  promenades  of  the 
Lyceum. 

PENTATEUCH.  This  Avord,  which  is 
derived  from  the  Greek  neiraTcvxos,  Iroui 
TteuTe,  live,  and  re^xos,  a  volume,  signilies  the 
collection  of  the  five  lxK)ks  of  3loses,  Avhu  h 
are  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  [Numbers, 
and  Deuteronomj-. 

PERFECTION  (Lat.  perfection  com- 
pleteness) in  theology  is  synonymous  with 
attribute,  and  used  to  designate  a  supreme 
excellence  of  the  Deity.  lenity,  spirituali- 
ty, goodness,  and  omnipotence  are  among 
the  divine  perfections  or  atti'ibutes.  (I.  70- 
lOn.)  The  word,  usually  qualified  by  Chris- 
tian^  is  also  employed  to  denote  the  state  of 
tho^e  who  are  entirely  sanctified. 

PERSON  in  the  Trinity.  By  persona 
the  Latin  Fathers  meant  what  the  Greel; 
Fathers  expressed  by  wTroo-rao-tc.  The  Synod 
of  Alexandria,  A.l).  333,  decided  that  the 
words  might  be  used  interchangeably.  The 
three  Divine  Persons,  or  Hypostases,  are 
each  the  subject  of  attributes  and  actions, 
and  yet  they  are  not  three  distinct  essences 
on  the  one  hand,  nor  merely  three  names  or 
relations  on  the  other.   (L  149,  150.) 

PERSON  of  Christ.  See  Christology, 
and  the  several  heresies  there  mentioned. 

PESSIMISM  (Lat.  pessimits,  the 
worst),  the  theory  of  existence  which  rep- 
resents that  evil  prevails  in  the  world,  and 
that  the  Avoi-ld  is  the  worst  po3sil>le.  This 
theory  in  its  recent  forms  is  a  reaction 
against  the  scheme  of  Ilcgel,  which  identi- 
fies the  rational  and  the  existing,  making 
dialectic  movement  the  key  to  all  being. 
Schojienhauer's  leading  work  is  TVie  World 
as  Will  and  Rcprcscntaiion,  in  which  he 
uses  "  Will  "  as  equivalent  to  impulse  in  all 
its  forms,  even  inclurling  the  forces  of  nat- 
ure. He  holds  to  a  progression  in  the  uni- 
verse from  lower  to  higher  forms  of  impulse, 
but  considers  that  in  the  i)roce-3  pain  and 
evil  are  the  inevitable  attendants,  and 
therefore  that  the  world  is  the  worst  possi- 
ble. Ilartmann,  in  his  PliilosopJiy  of  the  Un- 
conscioxLs,  takes  a  similar  view,  maintain- 
ing that  progression  is  at  the  cost  of  sufi'er- 
ing  to  .'-uch  a  degree  that  it  were  better  the 
world  did  not  exist,  and  yet  he  grants  that 
development  implies  that  the  woild  is  the 
best  possible  nnder  the  conditions.  Ilart- 
mann's  Pessimism  has  thus  involved  in  it  a 
moflified  Optimism  ^sec  translations  of  both 
works;  Sully'sP<?ssj?nism;  Ucbcrweg's//js- 
tory^  ii.  2.'.5  and  2.'3G).  Pessimism  admits 
of  no  positive  etiiics,  but  makes  ethical 
thought  negative,  tending  to  asceticism,  in 


order  to  escape  the  evil,  and  anticipating 
unconsciousness  as  the  end  of  all. 

PETENDA,  a  Latin  word  signifying 
things  to  be  sought  after  or  prayed  for.  See 
Agenda  and  Credenda.    (I.  il'd.) 

PETITIO  PRINCIPII,  a  Latin  phrase 
meaning  begging  the  question.  This  fallacy 
consists  m  assuming  in  uhe  argument  the 
very  point  to  be  esiablished,  as  m  Hume's 
celebrated  argument  against  miracles, 
which  lays  down  the  dictum  that  vura- 
cles  are  contrary  to  the  universal  experi- 
ence of  mankind.  This  assumes  the  very 
l)oint  in  debate,  Avluch  is  luiiether  there  is  'nut 
sufficient  historical  testimony,  in  amount 
and.  in  kind,  to  render  miracles  credible. 

PHENOMENALISM  (Grk.  <|)ait/6/x£i'oi', 
that  which  appears,,  the  theory  of  knowl- 
edge which  maintains  that  all  knowledge  is 
only  of  the  phenomenal  and  transitory,  de- 
nyingon  the  one  hand  knowkdgcof  objects 
as  existing  independently  of  our  recogni- 
ti(m  of  i)heuomeua,  and,  on  the  other, 
knowledge  of  necessary  and  universal 
truth.  ( 

PHILANTHROPY  (Grk.  <f>t\av0pa)ffia, 
from  <{>L\avepuj-evu},  to  be  a  friend  to  man- 
kind), the  love  of  mankind,  the  esteem  due 
to  man  as  a  moral  being,  possessing  the 
powers,  possibilities,  and  responsibilities 
belonging  to  eveiy  such  being.  It  is  thus  a 
love  of  our  fellow-men  re(iuired  by  moral 
law. 

PHTLOSOPHY  (Grk.  ,}>i\oTo<f>ioi,  <f>i\ia, 
<To^La,  the  love  of  wisdom).  The  origin  of 
the  word  is  traced  to  Pythagoras,  who  did 
not  call  himself  <70(^s,  like  the  wise  men  of 
Greece,  but  declared  himself  a  lover  of  wis- 
dom, <J)t\o5  <To<i>La<;.  Philosophy  is  the  ration- 
alized view  of  things  existing  or  occurring; 
"the  thinking  view  of  things;"  "the  at- 
tainment of  truth  by  the  way  of  reason." 
Technically,  Philosophy  is  the  ultimate  ra- 
tional explanation  of  things  obtained  by 
discovery  of  the  reason  of  their  existence, 
or  by  showing  n'hy  they  exist. 

PIGNORATIVE  Hate  Lat.  pignorare, 
from  T>at.  pignerare,  to  pledge,  pawn,  oi- 
mortgage),  pertaining  to  a  ])ledge  or  the 
act  of  pledging.  In  theological  language 
pignorative  is  applied  to  the  sacraments, 
(il.  2^)5.) 

PNEUMATOLOGY  (Grk.  nvei/xa,  spir- 
it; Aoyo?,  doctrine).  (1)  In  older  philosoph- 
ical writings  this  word  denotes  the  science 
of  the  human  spii  it,  but  in  this  sense  has 
now  been  displacerl  by  Psychology  (which 
see).  (2)  In  theology  the  term  designates 
that  dei)artment  which  concerns  itself  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  his  person- 


Glossary. 


41 


ality,  divinity,  procession,  offices,  and  dis- 
pensation.   (I.  27,  :!85-il4.) 

PNEUMATOMACHIANS  ((irk. 
vfevixa,  spirit,  and  /oiaxo/aai,  to  tight),  ilght- 
crs  against  the  Spirit.  «ee  Macedonians. 
(I.  32,  foot-note.) 

POLEMICS  (Grk.  TroAeMos,  war),  the  de- 
partment of  theology  engaged  in  the  de- 
fense of  the  truth  against  all  heresies  aris- 
ing within  the  Church.  See  Irenics.  (1. 
2G.) 

POLYANDRY  (Grk.  ttoAv?,  many,  and 
a»o)p,  man,  husband),  an  organization  of  the 
family  which  permits  a  woman  to  have 
more  than  one  husband  at  the  same  time. 
Though  polygamy  is  usually  employed  to 
designate  the  social  system  which  jiermits 
a  plurality  of  wives,  the  word  is  really  ge- 
neric, denoting  literally  a  plurality  of  mar- 
riages, and  includes  under  it  specilically 
Polyandry  (dellned  as  above),  and  Polygy- 
ny (Grk.  yufjj,  Avoman,  wife),  the  .system 
which  permits  a  pluiality  of  wives. 

POLYTHEISM  (Grk.  jtoAvs,  many,  and 
0e6s,  Gofl),  any  system  of  religion  or  philso- 
phy  wiiich  recognizes  a  ])lurality  of  gods. 

POSITIVISM,  the  name  given  by 
Comte  to  his  system  of  i)hiloso|)hy,  as  pro- 
fessedly based  ujwn  facts,  with  denial  of 
the  possil)ility  of  any  knowledge  of  causes; 
a  i)hilosophy  of  uniform  sequences. 

PRACTICAL  THEOLOGY,  that  de- 
l)artment  of  divinity  which  ordinarily  in- 
cludes (1)  Church  Government,  ''2)  Homilct- 
ics,  ami  (3)  the  Pastoral  rare.  (I.  20,  21). 
Jacobs's  Eeeletiiastical  Polity  of  the  New 
Testament;  Iloppiu,  Kidder,  Broadus, 
I'hel|>s,  and  Tieccher,  on  preaching;  antl 
A'inet  on  the  duties  of  a  pastor,  are  valua- 
ble works. 

PREJUDICE  (Lat  pro'judico,  to  judge 
before  imiuiry).  A  prejudice  is  a  pi"ejudg- 
ing;  that  is,  adopting  an  oi)inion  before  its 
grounds  have  been  faii'ly  or  fully  consid- 
ered. The  ojiinion  may  hapi"K?n  to  be  true, 
but  it  is  without  proper  evidence.  ^'■Prej- 
tidices  are  unreasonable  jiulgments,  formed 
or  l>eld  under  the  influence  of  some  other 
motive  than  the  love  of  truth"  (Tas'lor, 
Elements  of  Thought).  Reid  {Intellectual 
Powers,  essay  vi.,  ch.  viii.)  tmits  oi  preju- 
dices or  the  causes  of  enw,  according  to 
the  chissilication  given  of  them  by  Tiacon 
under  the  name  of  idols.  Locke  has  treated 
of  the  causes  of  eiTor  (Essay^  bk.  iv.,  ch. 

XX.). 

PROBLEM  (Grk.  TrodflATjima,  from  npofidX- 
Xw,  to  throw  down,  to  put  in  rpiestion), 
any  ])r<>position  attended  with  doubt  or 
difficulty,  which  may  be  attacked  or  de- 
36  Vol,  2. 


fended  by  probable  arguments.  It  is  al- 
most synonymous  with  Question,  and  is  ap- 
plied generally  to  the  subject  of  di.scussion. 
In  Mathematics  it  is  opposed  to  Theorem. 

PROCESSION,  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Procession  is  the  term  universally  adopted 
in  theology  to  exjiress  the  relation  which 
the  Si)irit  sustains  to  the  Father  and  the 
Son.  t  or  the  controversy  between  the  Lat- 
ins and  Greeks,  see  Filicque.  The  ontolof/- 
ical  procession  is  the  internal,  eternal,  and 
necessary  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son:  the  moile  of  tlie  Spirit's 
existence.  The  economical  piocession  is 
the  external  and,  in  a  cei  tain  sen.se,  tempo- 
ral, and  otlicial  relation  which  the  Spirit 
sustains  to  the  other  Persons  of  the  God- 
head in  the  administration  of  redemption. 
(I.  :]SS-391.) 

PROPHECY  (Grk.  npo^reia,  from  npo- 
4>y\TVf^Lv,  to  be  an  interpreter  of  the  gods,  to 
prophesy)  is  a  certain  foretelling  of  events 
obviously  contingent.    (I.  483-491.) 

PROTOPLASM  (Grk.  TrpJiro?,  first,  and 
frAao-oroj,  I  form).  (1)  It  is  named  by  Hux- 
ley, "the  i)hysical  !)asisof  life"  (Lay  Ser- 
mons,]). 132);  (2)  "a  .semi-fluid  substance" 
found  in  living  cells,  "  transi)arent,  color- 
less, not  diflluent,  but  tenacious  and  slimy  " 
(Quain's  Anatomy,  i.,  xv.,  7th  eil.).  The 
nourishing  property  which  contributes  to 
the  development  of  life  {cf.  Hutchison  Stir- 
ling, As  Regards  Protoplasm).    (I.  110.) 

PROVIDENCE  I  Lat.  pro  and  videre, 
to  see  beforehand),  as  pretlicated  of  God 
means  his  (1)  Ccnf«ervalicm,  and  (2;  Govern- 
ment of  the  universe,  li  includes  both  the 
physical  and  moral  governments.  (I.  85- 
SS,  115-121.) 

PSYCHIC  and  PSYCHICAL  (see  be- 
low). Pertaining  to  the  soul.  Applied  to 
forces  and  i)hcnomena  distinctive  of  mind. 
Used  in  contrast  with  physical. 

PSYCHOLOGY  (Grk.  .//vxi/,  the  soul; 
Aoyo?,  discourse),  a  theoiyof  the  nature  and 
powers  of  the  mind,  based  upon  the  analy- 
sis and  interpretation  of  the  facts  of  con- 
sciousness, as  these  ai-e  distinct  fi-om  each 
other,  and  as  they  are  i-elate<l  to  each  other. 
Its  method  is  observational  and  inductive, 
by  .means  of  introspection. 

PSYCHOPANNYCHY  (Grk.  .//vxn, 
the  soul,  nav,  all,  and  vv^,  night),  the  doc- 
trine of  soul -sleepers,  namely,  that  the  soul 
falls  asleep  at  death,  and  does  not  wake  till 
the  resurrection  of  the  1x)dy.    (I.  .389.) 

PSYCHO-PHYSICS  (Grk.  x}jvxn,  the 
soxil,  and  <^vo-is,  nature),  a  science  of  i"eoent 
growth,  Miiose  object  is  the  investigation  ot 
the  relations  between  the  psychical  and  the 


42 


Glossary. 


physical,  by  the  study  of  the  mathematical 
relation  between  the  degree  of  sensation 
an4  the  force  of  the  stimulus.  Its  chief 
representatives  are  Fechnei-,  AVundt,  and 
Heimholtz;  and  the  greatest  generalization 
reached  by  it  is  called  Weber's  or  Fecfiner's 
Laic\  viz.,  that  the  increase  in  intensity  of 
a  sensation  in  arithmetical  progression  is 
accompanied  by  the  increase  of  the  stimu- 
lus in  geometrical  progression  (see  Ribot, 
Psychologie  Allemande;  Sully,  Outlines  of 
Psychology^  p.  35,  note;  LoUe's  Metaphys- 
ics,^, id).  

Q,TJAKES.S,  a  religious  society  which 
began  to  be  distinguished  about  the  middle 

•of  the  seventeenth  century.  Their  doc- 
trines were  first  promulgated  in  England 
by  George  Fox,  about  the  year  1G47,  for 
which  he  was  imprisoned  at  Nottingham  in 
the  year  1649,  and  the  year  following  at 
Derby.  Fox  evidently  considei*ed  himself 
as  acting  under  a  divine  commission,  and 
went  not  only  to  fairs  and  markets,  but 
into  courts  of  justice  and  steeple  houses," 
as  he  called  the  churches,  warning  all  to 
obey  the  Holy  Spirit,  speaking  by  him.  It 
is  said  that  the  appellation  of  Quakers 
was  given  tbem  in  reproach  by  one  of  tlie 
magistrates,  who  in  1650  committed  Fox- 
to  prison,  on  account  of  his  bidding  him 
and  those  about  him  to  quake  at  the  word 
of  the  Lord.  But  they  adopted  among 
themselves,  and  still  retain,  the  kind  appel- 
lation of  Friends.  The  true  Friends  are 
orthodox  as  to  the  leading  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  but  exprer?s  tliemselves  in  pe- 
culiar phrases.  They  hold  special  revela- 
tions of  the  Holy  Spirit,  yet  not  to  the  dis- 
paragement of  the  written  woi'd,  Avhich 
they  regard  as  the  infallible  rule  of  faith 
antl  practice.  They  reject  a  salaried  min- 
istry, and  interpret  the  sacraments  niys- 
tica.ly.  They  are  advocates  of  the  interior 
spiritual  life  of  religion,  to  which,  indeed, 
tney  have  borne  constant  testimbuy;  and 
tncy  are  distinguished  by  probity,  philan- 
tnropy,  and  a  public  spirit.  In  the  United 
Stages,  the  Friends  are  divided  into  the  Or- 
tnodox  , so-called),  and  Hicksites,  or  follow- 
ers of  the  late  Elias  Hicks.  The  latter  are 
considered  as  having  departed  from  the 
original  iloctrinesof  the  Friends,  an<l  very 
far  from  the  leading  <Ioctrincsof  Christian- 
ity, as  held  by  Pix)testant  Christians  in  gcn- 

•cral. 

QUIETISTS,  the  disciples  of  Michael 
•  de  >r()linos,  a  Spanish  priest,  who  rtourishe<l 
in  the  seventeenth  century,  and  wrote  a 
book  called  The  Spiritual  Guide.   He  liad 


many  disciples  in  Spain,  Italy,  France,  and 
the  Netherlands.  Some  preteiul  that  he 
iKurowed  his  principles  from  the  Spanish 
Illuminati;  and  Gregoire  will  have  it 
that  they  came  originally  from  the  Persian 
Sufis;  while  others  no  less  confidently  de- 
rive them  from  the  Greek  ilesycasts.  The 
Quietists,  however,  tleduce  their  princiiiles 
from  the  Scriptures.  They  argue  thus: 
"The  aixjstle  tells  us,  that  '  tlie  Spirit 
makes  intercession  for '  or  in  '  us.'  Now,  if 
the  Spirit  pray  in  us,  we  must  resign  our- 
selves to  his  impulses,  by  i*emaining  in  a 
state  of  absolute  rest,  or  quietiule,  till  we 
attain  the  perfection  of  the  unitive  life,"  a 
life  of  union  with,  and,  as  it  would  seem,  of 
absorption  in,  the  Deity.  They  contend 
that  true  religion  consists  in  the  present 
calm  and  tranquillity  of  a  mind  removed 
from  all  external  and  finite  things,  and  cen- 
tered in  God ;  and  in  such  a  pure  love  of  the 
supreme  Being  as  is  independent  of  all 
prospect  of  interest  or  rewartl.  Madame 
Guyon,  a  woman  of  fashion  in  France,  born 
i  1648,  becoming  pious,  was  a  warm  advocate 
of  these  principles.  She  asserted  that  the 
means  of  arriving  at  this  perfect  love  are 
prayer  and  self-denial  enjoined  in  the  gos- 
pel. Prayer  she  defines  to  be  the  entire  bent 
of  the  soul  toward  its  divine  origin.  Some 
of  her  pious  canticles  were  translated  by 
the  poet  Cowper,  and  represent  Iier  senti- 
ments to  the  best  advantage.  Pension,  the 
amiable  archbishop  of  Cambray,  also  fa- 
vored these  sentiments  in  his  celebrated 
publication,  entitled  The  Maxims  of  the 
Saints.  The  distinguishing  tenet  in.his  the- 
ology was  the  doctrine  of  the  disinterested 
love  of  God  for  his  own  excellences,  inde- 
l)endent  of  his  relative  benevolence:  an  im- 
portant feature  also  in  the  .system  of  3Iad- 
ame  Guyon,  who,  Avith  the  good  archbi.'shop, 
wasi>ersccuted  by  the  Pope  and  by  Bossuet. 
(I.  2.>.3.) 

aUINanARTICULAR  CONTBO- 
VERSY.   See  Five  Points. 

RAPHAEL  (Heb.  the  medicine  of  God)^ 
the  name  of  an  angel,  mentioned,  I:owever» 
only  in  the  Apocrypha.   (I.  2^8,  289.) 

RATIONALISM  (Lat.  rationalis,  ra- 
tional, theoretical),  fl)  In  Pliilosoi»hy  IJa- 
tionalism  is  equivalent  to  Intuitionalism, 
an«l  opposed  to  Empiricism  (which  see). 
According  to  Rationalism,  experience  is 
itself  imjiossible  without  an  intelligence 
endowed  with  faculties  or  powers.  It  has 
often  been  carried  to  a  vicioiLS  extreme, 
issuing  in  a  false  system,  i.  e.,  the  Critical 
Philosophy  of  Kant,  which  is  pre-eminently 


Glossary. 


43 


a  scheme  of  Rationalism  as  opposed  to  the 
Sensationalism  which  culminated  in  Hume. 
(2,  In  Theology  liationalism  is  opposed  to 
Superuaturalism,  and  maintains  thatrea- 
60n  IS  entitled  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  rev- 
elation ami  reject  every  alleged  truth  of 
revelation  or  dogma  of  theology  which 
cannot  be  rationalized.  Sui)ernaturalism 
admits  (1)  that  the  cretlentials  of  revela- 
tion are  addressed  to  reason,  and  (2)  that 
nothing  can  be  believeil  which  flatly  con- 
tradicts the  clear  antl  undoubted  deliver- 
ances of  reason,  hut  maintains  io)  that  thei^e 
is  a  positive  revelation  of  truth  unattain- 
able by  reabon,  i.e.  ot  truth  beyond  the 
province  or  above  the  sphere  of  reason,  Init 
not  contradictory  to  it.  Jf  reason  has  an- 
tecedently accepted  the  cieilentials  of  an 
alleged  revelation  as  satisfactory,  it  cannot 
consistently  reject  any  truth  contained  jn 
that  revelation,  on  the  gi-ound  that  it  does 
not  fall  within  the  limits  fully  illuminated 
bj'  the  liglit  of  reason.  So  long  as  that 
truth  is  not  in  ixjsitive  conflict  with  ration- 
ality it  must  \te  accepted  as  covered  by  the 
originally  satisfactory  credentials  of  the 
revelation  as  a  whole.  If  revelation  did 
not  in  this  way  supplement  reason,  there 
could  be  no  function  for  it.  Extreme  Ra- 
tionalism is,  therefore,  led  to  tleny  the 
neccspity  for  revelation  and  the  possibility 
of  it. 

REAL,  The.  The  existent:  (1)  as  o])- 
poscd  to  the  non-existent;  (2)  as  opposed 
to  the  nominal  or  verbal;  (3)  as  synony- 
mous with  actual,  an<l  thus  opposed  («) 
to  potential,  and  (b)  to  possible,  existence; 
(4)  as  opposed  to  tho  phenomenal,  things  in 
themselves  in  opposition  to  things  as  they 
appear  relatively  to  our  faculties;  (5)  as 
indicating  a  subsistence  in  nature  in  oppo- 
sition to  a  representation  in  thought,  ens 
reale,  as  opjiosed  to  ens  rationis;  (0)  as  op- 
])Osed  to  logical  or  rational,  a  thing  which 
in  iiself,or  really,  re,  is  one,  may  logically, 
ra.ione,  be  considered  as  diverse  or  ])lural, 
anu  rice  versa  (abbreviated  from  Hamil- 
ton, ReicPs  Worlis,  note  b,  p.  80o). 

BEALxSM,  (1)  logically,  as  o])posc(l  to 
Xominalism  and  Conceptualism  (which 
see),  is  the  doctrine  that  genera  and  .spe- 
cies are  objective  entities  existing  inde- 
pendently of  our  conceptions  and  forms  of 
speech;  (2)  metaphysically,  as  oiijiosed  to 
Idealism  (which  see),  is  the  doctrine  that 
in  perception  there  is  an  immediate  or  in- 
tuitive cognition  of  the  external  object, 
while,  according  to  Idealism,  our  knowl- 
edge of  an  external  world  is  mediate  and 
i-eprcscntative.  Logical  Realism  is  gener- 


ally  rejected  as  false,  while  Metaphysical 
Realism  is  as  generally  accepted  as  true. 

RECONCILIATION  (Lat.  reconcilta- 
tio,  a  uniting  again;,  in  theoiogy  isju-ima- 
rily  the  removal  of  God's  enmity  again>t 
sin,  and  wr^th  against  sinners,  by  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ;  and  secondarily,  the  re- 
moval of  man's  enmity  against  tio<l 
through  the  grace  of  the  gospel,  resulting 
in  the  bringing  together  of  Go<l  aiul  man 
in  peace.  (I.  i38,  239.  See  also  the  hx)t- 
note.) 

REGENERATION  (I-it.  regeneratio, 
a  second  birth\  in  theology  is  the  common 
designation  of  the  new  birth  ilesciibcd  l»y 
our  Saviour  in  .lohn  iii.  It  is  descrii)ed 
by  Watson  as  'that  mighty  change  in 
man,  wrought  by  the  Holy  Si)irit,  by  which 
the  dominion  wliich  sin  has  over  him  in  his 
natural  state,  and  which  he  deplores  and 
struggles  against  in  his  i)enitent  state,  is 
broken  and  alx)lislied,  so  that,  with  full 
choice  of  will  and  the  energy  of  right  af- 
fections, he  serves  God  freely,  and  inns  in 

I  the  wav  of  his  commandments.''   (II.  73- 

I  77.)  • 

RELATIVITY  OF  HUMAN 
KNOWLEDGE.     (1)  In  most  general 
and  commonly  accepted  form  the  doctrine 
that  the  nature  and  extent  of  our  kuowl- 
!  edge  is  deteniiined  not  merely  by  the  qual- 
I  itiesof  the  objects  known,  but  necessarily 
I  by  the  nature  and  number  of  our  cognitive 
'  powers,   ill  knowing,  we  know  tlie  thing 
I  as  related  to  our  faculties  and  capacities, 
j  (2)  That  we  do  not  know  the  thing,  but  only 
i  impressions  nuule  on  our  sensibdity— that 
'  IS,  sensations  awakened  in  us,  and  attend- 
ant feelings  belonging  to  us.   This  leaves  it 
debatable  wlietlier  there  are  things  or  only 
ideas;  and  whether  sensations  are  depend- 
ent on  impressions  from  without,  in  some 
sense  expressing  the  external.    (3)  That 
the  mind,  in  the  exercise  of  rational  activ- 
ity, and  by  application  of  its  "forms"'  to 
I  the  intuitions  of  the  sensory,  constitutes 
'  the  objects  of  knowledge,  from  which  it 
I  follows  that  we  know  only  ])henomena,  not 
!  noumena— that  "-the  thing  in  itself "  can- 
not be  known.   In  its  Jirst  foi\n  the  doc- 
!  trine  is  the  implication  in  every  theory  of 
'  knowledge.    In  its  second  form  there  are 
;  included  the  antagonistic.schenies  of  Ideal- 
{  ism  and  Sensationalism.   In  \tsi7iird  fomi, 
I  we  have  the  theory  of  Kant,  in  some  i-e- 
I  spects  analogous  to  the  second,  but  giving 
!  a  difl'erent  view  of  the  mind's  activity,  ami 
I  attributing  a  different  sense  to  the  "  object  *' 
:  of  knowledge. 

I    RELIGION  (Lat.  cither  relegere,  to  go 


44 


Glossarij. 


over  again  in  thought  or  speech,  or  religa- 
rc,  to  bind  again.  See  foot-note,  I.  21  .  (1) 
Objectively,  any  system  of  faith  and  wor- 
ship, as  the  religion  of  the  Chinese,  but 
liarticnlarly  the  true  religion  established 
by  Jesus  Christ  upon  the  foundation  of  the 
apostles  and  proi)hets.  (2)  Subjectively,  the 
life  of  God  in  the  soul,  the  recognition  of 
God  as  the  true  object  of  worship,  love,  ami 
obedience,  and  the  consequent  conduct  of 
the  whole  life  in  accordance  with  the  will 
of  God.  (For  Kant's  and  Hagenbach's  defi- 
nitions see  I.  21.) 

K£IjIQUI.2B,  a  Latin  word  of  plural 
form  signifying  remains  or  remnants,  and 
sometimes  applied  to  that  porticn  of  the 
consecrated  bread  and  Avine  remaining  un- 
consumed  after  a  celebi-ation  of  the  Loid's- 
supper.  Concerning  the  final  disposal  of 
this  bread  and  wine  the  i-ubrics  of  some 
Churches  give  specific  directions.  (II. 
419.) 

REMONSTRANTS.  See  Arminian- 
ism. 

RESURRECTION  (Lat.  rcsiirrectio, 
from  /-f,  again,  and  surgere,  to  ri.se),  a  ris- 
ing again  from  the  dead.  (For  the  resur- 
lection  of  Christ,  see  I.  303-316;  fortheres- 
un-ection  of  the  body,  I.  334-337.) 

REVELATION,  see  Inspiratio  Ante- 
cedens,  under  Inspiration.  (I.  429-444.) 

REVISED  VERSION,  the  revision  of 
King  James's  Bible. (1011),  accoiniilished  by 
English  and  American  scholars,  the  New 
Testament  being  published  1881  and  the  Old 
1885.  Whatever  opinions  may  be  enter- 
tained as  to  the  comi)arative  merits  of  the 
two  versions,  there  can  be  no  question  that 
the  revision  is  a  most  excellent  critical 
commentary  upon  the  older  version,  and  as 
.*<iich  ought  to  be  studied  by  every  one  set 
for  the  exposition  and  defense  of  the  gos- 
pel. The  Ilevision  had  its  origin  in  action 
taken  by  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury, 
February,  1870.  For  a  full  account  of  the 
indes  under  which  the  revisers  did  their 
work,  etc.,  see  the  Old  and  Xcw  Testament 
Prefaces  contained  in  all  Oxford  editions  of 
the  revised  version. 

RHEMISH  TESTAIIENT,  a  Rom- 
ish  translation  of  the  New  Testament  into 
English,  printed  at  Rheims,  France,  1582, 
accompanied  with  copious  notes  by  Roman 
Catholic  authors.  This  vci>ion,  like  the 
Douay  Old  Testament,  with  which  it  is 
usually  bound,  Avas  translated  from  the 
Vulgate,  the  authoritative  Latin  Bible  of 
the  Roman  Church. 

RIGHTEOUSNESS,  justice,  holiness. 
The  righteousness  of  God  is  the  essential 


perfection  of  his  nature;  sometimes  it  is 
put  for  his  justice.  The  righteousness  of 
Christ  denotes  not  only  his  absolute  perfec- 
tion, but  IS  taken  for  his  perfect  obedience 
unto  death,  and  his  suflering  the  penalty  of 
the  law  in  our  stead.  The  righteousness  of 
the  law  IS  that  obedience  which  the  law  re- 
quires. The  righteousness  of  faith  is  the 
justification  which  is  received  by  faith. 


SABELLIANS  were  so  called  from 
Sabellius,  a  i)resbyter,  or,  according  to  oth- 
ers a  bishop  of  Upi>er  Egypt,  who  was  the 
founder  of  the  sect.  As  from  their  doctrine 
it  follows  that  God  the  Father  suffered,  they 
were  hence  called  by  thcu  adversaries,  Pa- 
tripassians;  and,  as  their  idea  of  the  Trin- 
ity was  by  some  called  a  modal  Trinity,  they 
have  likewise  been  called  Modaiists.  Sa- 
bellius having  been  a  disciple  of  Noetus, 
Noetians  is  another  name  by  which  his  fol- 
lowers have  sometimes  been  known;  and  as 
from  their  fears  of  infringing  on  the  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  all  tiue  i-eligion,  the 
unity  of  Go<l,  they  neglected  all  distinctions 
of  persons,  and  taught  the  notion  of  one 
God  with  three  names,  they  may  hence  be 
also  considered  as  a  species  of  Unitarians. 
(I.  148.) 

SACRAMENT  (Lat.  sacrainenium,  an 
oath,  a  sacred  thing,  a  mystery,  corre- 
sponding to  /xvcT-TTjpioi'  in  Gi-cck),  '-an  out- 
ward and  visible  sign  of  an  inward  and 
spiritual  grace,  given  untons,  ordained  by 
Christ  himself,  as  a  means  whereby  we  re- 
ceive the  fame,  and  a  pledge  to  assure  us 
thereof."   (II.  2^1-298.)  » 

SACRAMENTUM  AaU^,  FIDEI, 
liAVACRI,  and  EUCHARISTI^, 
Latin  phrases  signifying  the  aacramcnt  of 
water.,  of  faith,  of  the  bath,  and  of  thanks- 
(jivinff,  all  employed  by  Tcrtullian,  the  first 
three  with  reference  to  Baptism,  and  the 
last  with  reference  to  the  Lord's-supper. 
(11.  207.) 

SACRIFICE  ^Lat.  sacriflcinm,  fi-om 
«aeer, holy,  and  /acer^',  to  make).  When  ap- 
plied to  Christ  in  the  statement  of  the  doc- 
trine of  atonement,  this  term  means  a  pi- 
acular,  expiatoiy,  pi-opitiatory,  atonini^ 
oblation.  Tt  includes  the  two  ideas  of  sat- 
isfaction and  substitution.    (I.  225.) 

SCHLEIERMACHER,  Fried  rich 
Daniel  Ernst  (1768-1834),  is  styled  by  Dr. 
Schaff  "the  gi-catest  divine  of  the  nine- 
teenth century."  His  Olaubenxlehre,  or 
Christian  Hogmatics,  has  also  been  repre- 
sented as  the  greatest  theolojrical  i)i-o<luct 
of  the  century.  His  early  education  was 
conducted  by  the  Moravians.  He  then  at- 


Glossari/. 


45 


ttMuled   Halle  (17S7-1790),  devouring  the 
works  of  Wolf,  Kant,  and  Jacobi.  Ten 
years  (1790-1800)  were  occupied  with  preach- 
ing and  teaching:   In  1799  his  literary  ca- 
reer began  with  his  Itedcn,  addresses  to 
cultivated  unbelievers,  an  epoch-making 
work,  whose  fundamental  position  was  that 
the  culture  that  tlcspises  religion  is  but 
bhallow  presumption,  and  the  religion  that 
despises  culture  a  caricature.   In  LSOi  he 
became  Extraordinary  Professor  of  Theolo- 
gy at  Halle,  and  in  ISIO  Ordinary  Professor 
in  the  new  University  of  P.erlin.   Here  he 
l>asscd  from  a  teacher  of  religious  philoso- 
phy  to  an  exi)ounder  of  the  Avord  of  God. 
His  intercourse  with  the  otlicr  members  of 
the  uuiversity— with  Fichte,  Savigny,  and 
Hegel,  Aviih  Buttmann,  Boclih,  and  Lach- 
luann,  Avith  Dc  Wette,  ^larhcinekc,  and 
Neander— was  mutually  licneficial.    In  1S21 
appeared  the  first  edition  of  h\-i  Dor/matics, 
which  Avas  followed  by  the  much-enrichcd 
rcvi.-ed  edition  in  1S31.   Dogmatics  is  pre- 
Fontcd  as  the  systematized  contents  of  the 
Protestant  Christian  consriou,-ncss,  an<l  as 
the  result  of  a  feeling  of  absolute  dc])end- 
cnee.  It  speedily  recovered  from  the  shocks 
of  earlier  criticism,  and  came  to  honor  in 
nearly  all  the  German  universities,  in  many 
of  Avhich  itAvas  made  the  basis  of  special 
lecture-coui-bes.  The  body  of  discii)les  soon 
became  divided  into  three  chief  groups:  il; 
those  who  hehl  the  negative  critical  ele- 
ments, '2  those  Av ho  became  evangelically 
positive,  and  i3;  those  Avho  kept  to  the  mid- 
dle course  of  the  master.   Of  the  jiositively 
evangelical  disciples,  Avho  have  exerted 
more  or  less  influence  on  theology  in  En- 
gland and  America,  may  be  mentioned 
Nitzsch,  Julius     filler,  Hagenbach,  Tho- 
luck,  Bleek,  Olshauscn,  Donicr,  Martf  usen, 
and  Lange.    Schlciei-machcr's  last  act  and  | 
■words  were  the  administration  of  the  eu-  ! 
charist  to  himself  and  his  friends.  I 
SCHOIiASTICISM,  the  name  used  | 
toincludethcAvholereasoningof  the  school-  { 
men,  si>ecially  the  i)hilosopIu("al  disc-ussions 
from  the  ninth  century  onAvaifl  to  the  fif-  \ 
teenth.   Acconling  to  Diogenes  Lacrtius,  j 
bk.  V.  50,  Theophrastus,  the  Peripatetic,  in 
a  letter  to  his  pupil  Phanias,  called  himself 
a  scholastic — a-xoKaTrLKOf .    SchohisticKS.  as 
a  Latin  word,  Avas  first  used  by  Petronius. 
The  phrase  "  Scholastic  Philosophy  "  de- 
notes a  period  rather  than  a  system  of  phi- 
losophy.  It  is  the  i)hilosophy  that  Avas 
taught  in  the  schools  during  the  Middle 
Ages,  i.  e.,  from  the  commencement  of  the 
ninth  to  the  close  of  tlie  fifteenth  or  begin- 
ning of  the  sixteenth  century.  What  has 


j  been  called  the  Classic  Age  of  the  scholastic 
phdosopJiy  includes  the  thirteenth  an<l  four- 
teenth centuries.  I'hilosophyjike  all  learn- 
ing, Avas  in  the  hands  of  tiie  Church.  Its 
activity  was  conditione<l  by  tiie  authority 
of  the  Church  and  of  the  dogmas  Avhich  the 
^  Church  inculcated.   Its  melho^l  Avas  that  of 
the  Aristotelian  Logic,  which  had  most  at- 
tention, and  was  taught  by  i.releclions  on 
such  of  the  Avorks  of  Aristotle  as  Avere  best 
known.   The  first  years  of  scholastic  phi- 
I  losophy  Avcre  marked  by  (wthority.   In  the 
ninth  century  Joannes  Scotus  Erigena  at- 
I  templed  to  assert  the  claims  of  reason.  Two 
j  hundred  years  after,  the  first  era  Avas 
l)rouglit  to  a  close  by  Abelard.   The  second 
I  is  marked  by  Albcrtus  ]\Iagnns.  Thomas 
I  Aquinas,  and  Duns. Scotns.  Paymond  Lul- 
j  ly  and  Pogcr  Bacon,  folloAveci  by  Occam 
:  and  the  Nominalists,  represent  the  third 
'  and  declining  era. 

SCOTISTS,  a  philosophico  -  i-cligioiis 
-chool  holding  the  tenets  of  John  Duns 
J  Scotus  (12G5-130S),  and  especially  opixjscd 
!  to  the  Thomisls  (Avhich  see).    The  strug- 
gle betAvecn  these  tAvo  schools  turned  i)rin- 
cipally  ujion  questions  of  liberty,  grace, 
and  pretlestination,  the  Scotists  holding 
the  universality  of  gi-ace  and  the  freedom 
of  the  Avill.    Scotus  Avas  accountol  the 
chief  gloiy  of  the  Franciscftns  hvhich  see) 
I  as  Thomas  Aquinas  was  of  their  rivals,  the 
Dominicans  (Avhich  sec). 

SECULARISM,  the  Latin  Avord  for 
this-world-ism;  regulation  of  conduct  by 
exclusive  regairl  to  things  of  this  present 
life.  Its  capital  piinciplcs  are:  (1;  That 
attention  to  temporal  things  should  take 
precedence  of  considerations  relating  to  a 
future  existence;  (2)  that  science  is  the 
providence  of  man,  and  that  absolute  spir- 
itual dependency  may  be  attended  Avith 
material  dostrnction ;  (3;  that  there  exist, 
independently  of  revelation  and  religion, 
guarantees  of  morality  in  human  nature, 
intelligence,  and  utility.  The  aim  of  seen - 
laris7ii  is  to  aggrandize  the  present  life. 
For  eternity,  it  substitutes  time;  for  prov- 
idence, science;  for  fidelity  to  the  Omnis- 
cient, usefulness  to  man.  See  Jlumanita- 
rianism. 

SELF-EMPTYING.   See  Kenosis. 

SENSATONIALISM,  the  theory 
which  makes  sensation  the  sole  origin  of 
human  knoAA'ledge,  and  regards  sensibility 
as  the  source  from  Avhich  all  mental  power 
is  developed.  Locke  says:  "All  ideas 
come  from  sensation  or  reflection.''  This 
is  the  type  of  theoiy  to  Avhich  the  evolu- 
tionist is  shut  up,  if  he  proiwses  to  include 


46 


Glossary. 


imiul  with  luattei-  under  his  llieoiy  of  ex- 
istence. Its  uphohlci  s  are  James  Mill,  J. 
S.  Mill,  Bain,  and  Spencer.  Its  leading 
positions  are  these:  that  sensibility  is  the 
common  characteristic  of  life,  that  organ- 
ism is  constructed  on  a  common  plan,  that 
sensation  and  consciousness  are  the  same, 
that  sensations  repeat  themselves  so  as  to 
l)ecome  familiar,  that  recurring  sensations 
lK?come  associated,  anil  thus  afford  the  con- 
ditions of  rational  life,  assuming  the  «Iiffer- 
cnt  aspects,  of  intellectual,  volitional,  and 
emotional  experience. 

SHBKINAH  (a  late  Hebrew  word 
signifying  ?TszV?f?jee",,  a  word  not  found  in 
the  Bible,  but  used  by  the  later  Jews,  and 
borrowed  by  Christians  from  theni,  to  ex- 
l>ress  the  visible  majesty  of  tlie  Divine 
Presence,  especially  when  ihvelling  be- 
tween the  cherubim  on  the  mercy-seat  in 
the  tabernacle  and  in  the  temple  of  Solo- 
mon; but  not  in  Zeruhbabel's  templd^for  it 
was  one  of  the  five  particulars  in  which  the 
Jews  reckoned  the  second  temple  to  be  de- 
fective. 

SHEOIi,  a  Hebrew  word  signifying  the 
grave  or  the  state  of  the  dead.  ( I .  r>o'>-37o.) 
See  Hades. 

SOCINIANS,  a  sect  of  heretics,  so- 
called  from  their  founders,  the  Italians, 
Laslius  Socinus  (lo25-15G2),  and  his  nephew, 
Faustus  (1539-1604;.  Socinianism  has  for 
its  leading  feature  the  denial  of  our  Sav- 
iour's divinity,  with  the  admission  that  he 
Avas  a  typical  and  unique  man.  This  leads 
to  a  shallow  anthropology  and  soteriology, 
i.  c,  the  denial  of  the  fall,  and  its  conse- 
quences in  original  sin.  and  a  theory  of  the 
salvation  of  men  through  the  goodness  of 
God,  without  a  prr»per  atonement  for  sin. 
The  doctrines  of  the  sect  are  set  forth  in 
the  Kacovian  Catechism,  pulilished  in  the 
Polish  language,  in  1C05.  For  upward  of 
a  hundi*ed  j-ears  Poland  was  the  strong- 
liold  of  the  Sf>cinians;  but  in  163 ^,  by  a  de- 
ci-ee  of  the  Diet  of  WarsaAv.  they  were  ex- 
l»elled  from  the  kingdom,  and  this  severity 
being  repeated  in  lOGl,  they  were  com- 
pletely rooted  out.  The  modern  I'nitari- 
ans,  in  England  and  America,  though  not 
historically  connected  with  the  Polish  So- 
cinians,  hold  opinions  on  many  points  es- 
sentially identical  with  theirs.  See  Unita- 
rians. (1.1^9.) 

SOCINUS,  Lwlius  and  Fanstus.  See 
fiocinians.    'I.  140.; 

SOCIOLOGY  Lat.  socius,  a  compan- 
ion, and  Grk.  Aoyo?,  discourse;,  or  Social 
Science,  treats  of  the  laws  of  the  social  de- 
velopment of  the  human  race.    In  the 


hands  of  Spencer  the  science  regards  so- 
ciety as  an  organism  evolving  like  other 
organisms,  and  sets  before  itself  the  task 
of  ascertaining  the  laws 'of  its  evolution. 
It  is  led  up  to  by  Biolo(/y  and  Psychology, 
the  one  regarfling  man  as  an  organism,  the 
other  as  an  intelligent  being.  (See  Herbert 
Spencer,  Principles  of  Sociology  and 
Study  of  *S'oczoZoi/?/,  International  Seiies.) 

SOLIDARITY  (Fr.  solidarite),  "a 
wonl,"  says  Trench,  "which  Ave  owe  to  the 
French  Communists,  and  which  signifies  a 
community  in  gain  and  loss,  in  honor  and 
dishonor,  a  being  (so  to  speak)  all  in  the 
same  bottom."  In  theology  the  term  is 
used  to  express  the  organic  unity  of  the 
human  race— the  fact  that  individuals  are 
not  isolated  units,  Avithout  ancestry,  pos- 
terity, or  collateral  kin,  like  the  angels, 
but  members  of  a  Avhole,  Avhich  acts  and 
suffers  in  the  action  and  suflering  of  each 
of  its  parts,  and  Avhich,  in  particular,  is 
profoundly  affected  by  the  deeds  of  Adam 
and  Jesus  Christ,  the  first  and  second  heads 
of  the  race.    (I.  261,  2'32;  II.  io.) 

SOL.IFIDIANISM  (Lat.  solus^  alone, 
and  fides,  faith.,  the  doctrine  that  faith  is 
the  Avholc  of  religion.  There  are  two  forms : 

(1)  one  considering  religion  to  be  the  intel- 
lectual apprehension  of  correct  dogma,  and 

(2)  the  other  being  a  one-sided  exaggera- 
tion of  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion l;y  faith  only.  Justifying  faith  in  sola, 
but  not  solitaria.  T\'e  are  justified  by  faith 
only  (not  by  faith  alone,  as  our  Article  IX.  is 
sometimes  misquoted) ;  but  this  faith,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  is  never  alone,  either  as 
to  accompaniments  or  as  to  results.  Faith 
is  the  only  ;instrumentally)  justifying  ele- 
ment in  the  moral  state  of  the  penitent,  be- 
lieving sinner,  but  it  does  not  abide  alone. 
Solifidianism  denies  the  necessity  for  good 
Avorks,  and  issues,  of  course,  in  Antinomi- 
anism.   (TI.  03,  94,  foot-note.) 

SOTERIOLOGrY  (Grk.  c-wnjpi'a,  salva- 
tion, and  Aoyo?,  doctrine),  that  dejiartment 
of  theology  which  treats  of  the  i'edemi)tion 
Avrought  out  by  Christ  and  of  its  realization 
'in  the  experience  of  the  believer  by  the  op- 
eration of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  former  beimr 
Soteriology  Objective,  and  the  latter  Soteri- 
ology Subjective.  (1. 27,215-298,  401-414;  II. 
17,  foot-note.) 

SOVEREIGN  FORGIVENESS,  the 
doctrine  that  God  might  forgive  sin  as  a 
function  of  his  supreme  prerogative,  irre- 
si)ective  of  satisfaction  through  an  atone- 
ment.   (1.237.  240.) 

SPINOZA,  Benedict,  (16.32-1677:,  a 
I  Dutch  Jew,  the  father  of  modem  Pantheism, 


Glossarif. 


47 


Avho  early  came  to  an  open  ruptiii-e  with 
Judaism,  but  without  formally  going  over 
to  Christianity.  Though  offered  a  profess- 
orship in  Heidelberg,  with  full  liberty  of 
teaching,  he  preferred  to  support  himself 
by  grinding  optical  glasses.  "Abstemious 
in  his  liabits,"  says  Schwegler,  "satisfied 
with  little,  the  master  of  his  passions,  never 
intemperately  sad  or  joyous,  gentle  and  be- 
nevolent, with  a  character  of  singular  ex- 
cellence and  purity,  he  faithfully  illustrat- 
ed in  his  life  the  doctrines  of  his  philoso- 
phy." ITis  principle  work,  the  Ethics^  was 
published  immediately  after  his  death. 
This  Avork  is  geometrical  in  form,  and  be- 
gins with  a  definition  of  substance  as  "  that 
which  needs  nothing  other  for  its  exist- 
ence." God  is  the  only  substance,  and  this 
substance  manifests  itself  to  man  under  the 
two  antithetical  attributes  of  matter  and 
mind,  or  extension  and  thought.  Tlie  indi- 
vidual manifestations  of  matter  and  mind 
Spinoza  regards  as  modes.  Man,  moreover, 
deceives  liimself  with  regard  to  his  freedom, 
God  being  the  only  agent. 
STOICS  (from  o-roa,  a  porch).  Zeno 
, opened  a  school  at  Athens,  in  the  "varie- 
gated porch,"  so-called  from  the  paintings 
of  rolygnotus,  with  which  it  was  adorned, 
whence  his  adherents  were  called  Stoics, 
i.  c,  "philosophers  of  the  porch."  Of  his 
disciples  the  most  important  were  Clean - 
thes,  Chrysippus,  and  Panaetius.  Like  Ep- 
icureanism, Stoicism  found  a  favorable 
reception  among  the  eclectic  philosophers 
of  Rome,  of  whom  the  chief  M  ere  Seneca, 
Kpictetus,  and  Marcus  Aurelius  Antoninus. 
The  interest  of  the  Stoics  in  philosophy  was 
practical,  rather  than  speculative.  They 
held  that  all  knowledge  arises  from  sense- 
l»ercei)tion;  but  with  this  they  believed  in 
"  common  ideas  "  or  "  anticipations  "  {Koivai 
euvoiaL  or  7rpoAjjv|/ei?).  In  Physics  they  were 
l)antheistic,  identifying  God  with  the  uni- 
verse. The  "rational  germs"  of  all  things 
(Aoyoi  (nrepixaTiKoC)  werc  in  God.  The  Divine 
government  of  the  world  was  of  the  nature 
of  Fate  (el/mapfxevtj),  Avhich  they  conceived  re- 
ligiously as  Providence  (Trpdfoia).  The  Stoic 
philosophy  Avas  in  its  main  features  ethical. 
Tts  ethical  formula  was  "live  agreeably  to 
nature,"  and  its  interpretation  of  "  nature" 
carried  in  it  the  rule  that  intelligence  gov- 
erns, and  that  feelings  should  be  brought 
into  complete  subjection  to  it.  This  inter- 
pretation followed  in  its  earlier  stages  on 
the  lines  of  the  Aristotelic  discussion  con- 
cerning "the  proper  work  of  man,"  and 
thence  diverged  to  an  extreme  Avhich  re- 
quired the  suppression  of  desire  and  the 


subordination  of  the  human  will  to  the  l  ec- 
ognized  order  of  things  in  the  tmiverse. 

SUBIiAPSARIANS.  See  iSupralap- 
sarians. 

SUPRALAPSARIANS.   The  way  in 

which  they  understand  the  divine  decrcc-i 
has  produced  two  distinctions  of  Calvinists, 
viz.,  Sublapsarians  and  Supralapsarians. 
The  former  term  is  derived  from  Uvo  Latin 
words,  sub,  below,  or  after,  and  la2jsus,  the 
fall;  and  the  latter  from  supra,  above,  and 
lapsus,  the  fall.  The  Sublapsarians  assert 
that  God  had  only  i^ermitted  the  first  man  to 
fall  into  transgression,  without  absolutely 
predetermining  his  fall ;  their  system  of  de- 
crees concerning  election  and  reprobation 
being,  as  it  were,  subsequent  to  that  event. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Supralapsarians 
maintained  that  God  had  from  all  eternity 
decreed  the  transgression  of  man.  The 
Supralapsjarian  and  Sublapsarian  schemes 
agree  in  asserting  the  doctrine  of  predesti- 
nation, but  with  this  difference,  that  the  for- 
mer supposes  that  God  intended  to  glorify  his 
justice  in  the  condemnation  of  some,  as  well 
as  his  mercy  in  the  salvation  of  others  ;  and 
for  that  purpose  decreed  that  Adam  should 
necessarily  fall,  and  bj'  that  fall  bring  him- 
self and  all  his  offspring  into  a  state  of  ev- 
erlasting condemnation.  The  latter  scheme 
supposes  that  the  decree  of  predestination 
regards  man  as  fallen,  b}-  an  abuse  of  that 
freedom  which  Adam  had,  into  a  state  in 
which  all  were  to  be  left  to  necessary  and 
unavoidable  ruin  who  were  not  exempted 
from  it  by  j)redestination. 

SWEDENBORGIANS,  the  followers 
of  Baron  Swedenborg,  who  was  boi'ii  at 
Stockholm  in  1688,  and  died  in  London  in 
1772.  This  fanatic,  declaring  himself  fa- 
vored with  direct  revelations,  and  Avith  the 
poAver  of  seeing  and  conversing  Avith  saints 
and  angels,  published  in  fourteen  quarto 
volumes  the  result  of  his  supposed  interr 
views  Avith  the  Avorld  of  spirits.  After  hia 
death  his  followers  assumed  the  appearance 
of  a  distinct  sect,  and  in  1788  began  to  style 
themselves  "The  Xcav  Jerusalem  Church." 
His  doctrines  are  thus  stated:  1.  That  there 
is  bjiit  one  God,  one  in  essence  and  one  in 
person,  in  Avhom  there  is  a  divine  Trinity, 
like  soul,  body,  and  operation  in  man,  and 
that  the  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  is 
that  one  God.  2.  That  the  humanity  de- 
rived from  the  Virgin  Avas  successively  put 
off,  and  a  divine  humanity  put  on  in  its 
stead;  and  this  Avas  the  glorification  of  the 
Son  of  man.  3.  That  redemption  consisted 
in  the  subjugation  of  the  poAvers  of  hell, 
Avhereby  man  Avas  delivered  from  the  bond- 


48 


Glossary. 


age  of  evils  and  errors,  aud  that  it  was  thus 
Jin  actual  work  on  the  part  of  the  Lord  for 
the  sake  and  happiness  of  man.  4.  That 
faith  alone  does  not  justify  aud  save  man; 
but  he  must  have  faith,  charity,  and  good 
works.  5.  That  the  sacred  Scripture  is  di- 
vinely inspired  in  every  particular,  and  i 
contains  a  natural,  spiritual,  and  celestial 
sense,  and  is  applicable  to  augels  in  heaven, 
as  well  as  to  men  on  earth.  G.  That  man 
enters,  immediately  after  death,  into  the^ 
spiritual  world,  leaving  his  body,  which 
will  never  be  resumed,  and  continues  to  all 
eternity  a  man  in  a  human  form,  with  the 
possession  of  all  his  faculties.  7.  That  the 
last  judgment  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  eflected  by  the  Lord  in  the  spir- 
itiial  world  in  the  year  17o7:  the  good  were 
then  elevated  to  heaven,  and  the  evil  cast 
down  to  hell. 

SYNERGISM  (Grk.  «rv»',  with,  and  Ip- 
yfiv,  to  Avork),  the  doctrine  that  man,  under 
gi'ace,  co-operates  with  the  Sjjirit  in  the 
process  of  individual  salvation.  (I.  ii,  foot- 
note; ir.  81-83,  89,  90.) 

SYNOPTISTS  (Grk.  trvV,  with,  0.//1?,  a 
vieAV  or  sight),  a  name  often  applied  to  the 
wi'iters  of  the  first  three  gospels  as  giving 
an  outline  view  of  the  life  of  Jesus  in  con- 
trast with  John,  whose  Gospel  is  designated 
theological.   (II.  400.) 

SYSTEM  (Grk.  crvcmjjaa,  from  <rvyL<rrr]iJLt., 
to  Stand  together),  a  full,  connected  view  of 
some  department  of  knowledge;  an  or- 
ganized body  of  tnith  or  truths.  System 
applies  not  only  to  out  knowledge,  but  to 
the  objects  of  our  knowledge.  It  is  implied 
in  the  objects  in  order  that  it  may  be  in  the 
knowledge.  Thus  we  speak  of  the  planet- 
ary system,  the  uiuscular  system,  the  nerv- 
ous system.  Order  has  its  foundation  in 
the  natuie  of  things.  It  is  this  belief  that 
encourages  the  prosecution  of  knowledge. 

TELiEOIiOGY  (Grk.  tc'Aos,  end,  and 
Aoyo?,  discourse),  the  science  of  ends,  final 
causes,  or  design  in  nature.  "The  argu- 
ment from  final  causes,^^  says  Dr.  Reid 
{Intellectual  Powers,  essay  vi.,  ch.  vi.), 
*'when  reduced  to  a  syllogism,  has  these 
two  premises:  First,  that  design  and  intel- 
ligence in  the  cause  may,  Avith  certainty, 
1)0  inferred  from  marks  or  signs  of  it  in  the 
effect  This  Ave  may  call  the  major  propo- 
sition of  the  argument.  The  second,  Avhich 
we  rail  the  minor  proposition,  is  that  there 
are  in  fnct  the  clearest  marksof  design  and 
wisfioin  in  the  works  of  nature;  and  the 
conclusion  is  that  the  Avorks  of  nature  are 
the  effects  of  a  wise  and  intelligent  cause. 


One  must  either  assent  to  the  conclusion, 
or  deny  one  or  other  of  the  premises."  The 
argument  from  design  is  prosecuted  by 
Paley,  in  Nat.  Theol.;  by  the  authors  of  the 
Bridgewatcr  Treatises;  in  Burnett's  Prize 
Essay;  Whewell's  Induct.  Set.,  ii.  00.  Ja- 
I  net  on  Final  Causes  may  be  regarded  as 
classical  and  final.  See  Cause,  Design,  and 
Final  Cause.    (I.  57,  G3-G5,  90-97,  127-i:]0.) 

TERMINISM  (Lat.  terminus,  a  bound- 
ary), a  soteriological  theory  that  God  has 
fixed  a  certain  limit  this  side  of  death  for 
the  probation  of  individuals,  during  which 
probationary  period,  and  no  longer,  these 
persons  have  the  overtures  of  the  Spirit  of 
grace.    (II.  108,  100.) 

TEHTULLIAN  (born  about  ICO,  and 
died  between  220  and  240),  the  most  ancient 
of  the  Latin  fathers  Avhose  Avorks  are  noAv 
extnnt.  His  natural  endowments  Averc 
great,  and  Avere  supplemented  by  compre- 
hensive studies,  wliose  fruit  appears  in  the 
Avealth  of  historical,  legal,  i)hilosophical, 
physical,  and  antiquarian  elements  in  his 
writings.  He  Avas  the  first  religions  Avi  it- 
er  after  the  apostles  Avho  attained  to  a 
clear  recognition  of  the  mighty  contrast 
between  sin  and  grace.  He  Avent  over  to 
]Montanism  in  202,  becoming  the  head  of 
the  Montanistic  party  in  Africa.  His  nu- 
merous Avritiugs  may  be  divided  into  two 
classes:  (1)  those  which  defend  orthodox 
Christianity  against  unbelievers  and  lu^r- 
etics,  and  (2)  the  anti-Catholic  Avritings 
in  Avhich  3Iontanistic  divergences  are  ex- 
pressly defended.  This  great  defender  of 
Catholic  orthodox  against  Gnostic  heresy 
Avas  a  schismatic  to  such  a  degree  that  he 
has  never  been  included  liy  Uomc  among 
the  p  aires  as  distinguished  from  the 
scrijJtores  ecclesiastici. 

TETRATHEISM  (Grk.  reVpa,  fonr, 
and  ©€0?,  God),  an  error  born  of  a  false  a)id 
exaggerated  Trinitarianism,  Avhich  repi  e- 
sents  the  Godhead  as  consisting  of  foni* 
persons,  i.  e.,  God  absolutely,  and  three 
l^ersonal  distinctions  or  manifestations— 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  (I.  74, 
75.) 

THEANTHROPIC  (Grk.  eed?,  God, 
and  av6fKx)no<:,  man),  an  adjective  some- 
times emi)loyed  to  designate  the  unifjue 
personality  and  work  of  .Jesus  Christ,  who 
Avas  and  is  and  ever  Avill  be  both  God  and 
man.  Theandrie  is  a  somewhat  rarer  syn - 
onym. 

THEISM  (Grk.  ecos,  God),  strictly  the 
belief  in  the  existence  of  God,  opposed  to 
Atheism;  but  in  general  such  an  accept- 
ance of  the  divine  existence  as  harmomzcs 


Glossary. 


49 


with  Christian  revelation,  opposed  to  De- 
ism (whicli  sec). 

THEODICY  (Grk.  ©eo?,  God,  and  BiKrj, 
justice,  honor),  a  vindication  of  the  divine 
glory  against  all  impeachments,  priniarily 
of  the  divine  justice  or  goodness,  and  sec- 
ondarily of  the  divine  power  and  -wisdom, 
founded  upon  the  existence  of  evil  in  the 
■world.  Bledsoe's  Theodicy  has  exercised 
an  extensive  influence,  and  is  Avorthy  of 
close  study.  See  Evil  and  Leibnitz.  (I. 
122-14G.) 

THEODORE  of  Mopsuestia  (cir.  350- 
428),  bishop,  and  leader  in  tlie  theological 
school  of  Antioch,  whose  imijortance  grows 
out  of  his  relation  to  Christological  prob- 
lems, and  in  a  lower  degree  out  of  his  ex- 
egetical  labors.  The  Xestorians  appealed 
to  his  woi-ks.  and  at  the  Fifth  Eciimenical 
Council  Theodore  and  his  writings  were 
condemned.  Of  his  exegetical  works  in 
Greek  only  a  commentary  on  the  minor 
prophets  is  extant.  Other  expositions  of 
some  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  whicli  had 
been  published  in  Eatin  by  Hilary  of  Poi- 
tiers, have  lately  been  recognized  as  the 
work  of  Theodore.  He  was  anti-Augus- 
tinian,  but  not  Pelagian. 

THEODORET  (385-457),  one  of  the 
most  eminent  bishops  of  the  fifth  century, 
whose  later  career  was  embittered  by  the 
Nestorian  controversy,  Theodoret  opposing 
the  Eutychianism  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria. 
Though  great  numbers  of  Arians,  ^lacedo- 
nians,  and  IMarcionitcs  were  found  in  his 
diocese,  lie  succeeded  by  ii9  in  regaining 
them  all  to  t'.ie  Church,  reporting  the  bap- 
tism of  no  less  than  ten  thousand  jMarcion- 
ites.  Theodoret  was  the  author  of  many 
works  in  exegesis,  history,  polemics,  and 
dogmatics,  the  exegetical  being  of  chief 
conscfiuence. 

THEOLOGY  (Grk.  ©eos,  God,  and  Ad- 
70s,  tliscour^),  strictly  the  science  of  God, 
but  more  Avidely  the  science  of  God  and 
divine  things.  In  the  largest  sense  it  in- 
cludes Systematic,  Historical,  Exegetical, 
ami  Practical  Theology  (I.  21),  but  the  Sys- 
tematic or  Dogmatic  department  is  often 
recognized  as  Theology  by  eminence.  As 
strictly  the  science  of  God,  it  is  now  usual 
to  speak  of  Theology  Proper.  (F.  -t^-lS".) 
It  is  rightly  described  as  a-  Jiuman  science 
of  divine  things.    (T.  10-28.) 

THEOPASCHITES  (Grk,  ©ed?,  God, 
and  Trao-xeii',  to  sulTer),  heretics  whose  char- 
acteristic tenet,  that  the  Deity  is  capable 
of  sufl'ering,  and  has  sufferod,  is  a  direct 
conseijuence  of  Eutychianism  or  INIonophy- 
sitism,  namely,  that  Christ  was  possessed 


of  but  one  nature,  and  that  the  divine. 
This  error  needs  to  be  nicely  discriminated 
from  Patripassianism  (which  see),  the  lat- 
ter heresy  being  consiilered  a  consequence 
of  Sabellianism,  the  doctrine  of  a  merely 
modal  Trinity,  or  that  there  is  only  one 
Divine  Person  under  three  distinct  mani- 
festations. If  Father  and  Son  are  one  per- 
son, then  the  Father  sufl'ercd  on  the  cross. 
But,  as  Dr.  Summers  points  out  (1. 190, 191', 
Patripassianism  is  not  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  Sabellianism.  In  fine,  Theopas- 
chitism  is  a  Christological  heresy  growing 
out  of  erroneous  views  of  the  pei-son  of 
Chr  ist,  and  holding  that  Christ  suflfered  n\ 
his  sole  divine  nature,  while  Patripassian- 
ism is  a  Theological  heresy  growing  out 
of  eiToneous  views  of  the  Trinity,  and 
holding  that  the  one  Person  of  the  God- 
head— naturally  regarded  as  the  Father 
— became  incarnate,  and  sufl"ered  on  the 
cross.  It  may  still  be  held,  however, 
that  this  Incarnate  Person  sufrered  only  in 
his  human  nature.  It  remains  to  be  no- 
ticed that  language  apparently  involving 
the  Theopaschite  view  is  found  in  the 
Scriptures  {e.  Acts  xx.  28;,  and  as  a 
consequence,  in  orthodox  theology,  and  in 
the  hyiuns  of  the  (Jhurch  in  all  ages  and 
land^  This  is  very  carefully  and  correctly 
explainecl  by  Dr.  Summers,  I.  189  and  I. 
201.    (1.  183-191;  cf.  I.  Ii8.) 

THEOPNEUSTY  (Grk,  0ed-i.evaTos,  an 
adjective  occurring  in  2  Tim,  lii.  1(3,  and 
meaning  God-breathed from  Geo?,  God,  and 
TTi/eti/,  to  breath),  divine  inspiration ;  the  su- 
l)crnatural  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit 
imparting  truth  to  men  and  qualifying 
them  for  its  oral  communication  or  Avritten 
record.  S.  Tl.  L.  Gaussen,  professor  of  the- 
ology in  (Geneva,  has  a  treatise  on  inspira- 
tion styled  Theopneiisti/,  translated  by  E. 
X.  Kirk:  New  York  and  Loston,  1842.  See 
Inspirotion.    (I.  445-4G1,) 

THEOSOPHY  (Grk,  ©eds,  God;  a-o<pCa, 
knowledge).  Theosophy  may  be  called  the 
speculative  side  of  Mysticism.  The  latter 
is  primarily  ethical  and  religious:  the 
former  gives  the  theory  on  which  the  prac- 
tice of  the  mystic  is  based.  The  Theosophic 
method  of  reaching  a  speculative  view  of 
God  and  of  the  relations  of  the  divine  to  the 
human  is  peculiar.  It  is  not  by  way  of 
reason,  but  rather  of  inspiration  oi' divine 
illumination.  This  inner  revelation  of  the 
divine  is  superior  even  to  the  outer  revela- 
tion in  the  Scriptures.  "  The  theosophist  is 
one  who  gives  you  a  theory  of  God,  or  of  the 
Avorks  of  God,  which  has  not  reason,  but 
an  inspiration  of  hie  own,  for  its  basis" 


50 


Glossary. 


(Vaiighan,  Hours  with  Mystics,  i.  45). 
Hence  the  subjective  and  capricious  chai*- 
ncter  of  the  speculation.  See  Marteuseu's 
Jacob  Boehme. 

THEOTOKOS  (Grk.  0eoT6<o5.  God-bear- 
ing), the  Greek  equivalent  of  the  Latin 
Deipara  and  Mater  Dei  (which  see).  (I. 
1*)7,  198,  200,  201.) 

THOMISTS,  followers  of  Thomas  Aqui- 
nas (J224-1274j,  who  was  educated  at  the 
I'niversity  of  Naples.  At  seventeen  he 
joined  the  Dominicans,  and  at  twenty-four 
taught  dialectics,  philosophy,  and  theology 
in  the  University  of  Paris.  He  lectured-  on 
divinity  in  other  universities,  and  settled 
at  Naples,  whose  archbishopric  he  refused. 
His  works  make  seventeen  volumes,  of 
which  the  most  celebrated  is  the  Summa 
Theolorjice.  He  held  the  Aristotelian  phi- 
losophy and  the  Augustinian  theology. 
Aquinas  is  called  the  Angelical  Doctor,  the 
Fifth  Doctor,  the  Eagle  of  the  Church,  and 
tlie  Aivgel  of  the  Schools. 

TISCHENDORF,  Lobegott  Friedrich 
Constantin  von,  (1815-1874),  the  most  prom- 
inent scholar  in  the  department  of  New 
Testament  palcograi)hy,  entered  Lcipsic  in 
1834,  and  took  his  doctorate  in  philosophy  in 
1839.  In  1840  he  Avent  to  Paris.  A  MS.  of 
the  Bible,  from  early  in  the  fifth  century, 
had  in  the  twelfth  been  cleansed  and  iised 
for  writings  of  Ephraem  Syriis.  Tischeu- 
dorf,  Avith  chemical  re-agents  completely 
restored  the  original  text.  In  1841-1842,  he 
visited  the  libraries  in  Holland,  London. 
Cambridge,  and  Oxford.  He  made  jour- 
neys to  the  East  in  1844, 1853,  and  1859, on  this 
last  journey  discovering  the  celebrated  Co- 
dex Sinaiticus  which,  with  tlie  Vatican  MS., 
is  recognized  as  the  oldest  codex  of  the  New 
Testament.  After  his  return  he  was  made 
ordinary  pi*ofcssor  at  Leipsic,  a  special 
chair  of  sacred  i)aleography  being  created 
for  him.  Probably  no  other  theologian  ever 
received  so  many  marks  of  distinction, 
academic  and  civil.  He  was  made  a  Russian 
noble,  a  Saxon  privy  -  councilor,  knight 
of  man}'  orders,  doctor  of  all  academic 
<Iegrces,  and  member  of  an  indefinite  num- 
ber of  .societies.  Tiscbendorf's  larger  eighth 
e<lition  is  <loubtless  the  best  critical  appa- 
l  atus  for  the  stmly  of  the  evidences  for  the 
detei-mination  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  smaller  eighth  edition  is  one  of 
the  best  critical  texts  for  general  study  and 
use,  as  is  also  that  of  Westcott  and  Hort, 
Most  of  the  Greek  Testaments  in  common 
circulation,  i)articulaiiy  those  with  Latin 
or  English  in  parallel  columns,  have  little 
or  no  critical  value. 


TOKENS,  TESSERJE,  orTICK- 
ETS,  M  ere  written  testimonials  to  charac- 
ter, much  in  use  in  the  primitive  Church. 
By  means  of  letters,  and  of  brethren  who 
traveled  about,  even  the  most  remote 
Churches  of  the  Roman  Empire  were  con- 
nected together.  When  a  Christian  ar- 
rived in  a  strange  town,  he  first  inquired 
for  the  Church;  and  he  was  here  received 
as  a  brother,  and  provided  with  every  thing 
needful  for  his  spiritual  or  corporeal  sus- 
tenance. But  since  deceivers,  spies  with 
evil  intentions,  and  false  teachers  abused 
the  confidence  and  the  kindness  of  Chris- 
tians, some  measure  of  precaution  became 
necessary  in  order  to  avert  the  many  inju- 
ries which  might  result  from  this  conduct. 
An  arrangement  was  therefore  introduced, 
that  only  such  traveling  Christians  should 
be  received  as  brethren  into  the  Churches 
where  they  were  strangers  as  could  pro- 
duce a  testimonial  from  the  bishop  of  the 
Church  from  which  they  came.  They  called 
these  Church  letters,  which  were  a  kind  of 
tesserce  hospitales  (tickets  of  hospitality), 
by  which  the  Christians  of  all  quartei-s  of 
the  world  were  brought  into  connection. 
epistolce,  or  literce  formatce  (formal  let- 
ters, ■ypa/u./LLOTa  T£TV7rc6/LLeva),  because,  in 
order  to  avoid  forgery,  they  were  made 
after  a  certain  schema  (rvrb?,  forma),  or 
else,  epistolce  commiinicatorice  (epistles  of 
fellowship,  ypa/i/xara  kolvoiviko.} ,  because  they 
contained  a  proof  that  those  who  brought 
them  were  in  the  communion  of  the  Church, 
as  well  as  that  the  bishops,  who  mutually 
sent  and  received  such  letters,  were  in  con- 
nection together  by  the  communion  of  the 
Church;  and  afterward  these  Church  let- 
ters, epistolce  clericce,  were  divided  into 
difi*erent  classes,  according  to  the  difference 
of  their  purposes. 
TRACT ARIANS.  See  High-church. 
TRADITION  (Lat.  traditio,  from  tra- 
dere,  to  transmit)  is  defined  by  Romanists 
as  "  the  handing  down  from  one  generation 
to  another,  whether  by  word  of  mouth  or 
by  writings,  those  tniths  revealed  by  Jesus 
Christ  to  his  apostles,  which  either  are  not 
!  contained  in  the  Holy  Scrijitures,  or  at 
]  least  are  not  clearly  contained  in  them.'' 
I  Some  Anglicans  distinguish  becwcen  TTer- 
>  mejieutical  tradition  and  Ecclesiastical,  the 
i  former  referring  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
:  Scrii)tures,  and  the  latter  to  the  discijjline 
I  and  ceremonies  of^  the  Church.  (I.  504-515, 
i  525.) 

j    TRADUCIANISM  ''Lat.  trans,  across, 
and  ducere,  to  lead),  the  doctrine  that  the 
I  human  soul  as  well  as  the  body  is  tranfa- 


Glossary. 


51 


mitted  by  generation  from  parents  to  child. 
The  theory  is  opposed  to  Creationism  (which 
see). 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION  (Lat. 

trans,  across,  over,  and  substantia,  sub- 
stance), the  Koman  Catholic  doctrine  that 
in  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's-supper  the  ; 
substance  of  the  bread  and  wine  is  changed  ; 
into  the  substance  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
C'hrrst,  so  that  under  the  accidents  of  bread  ' 
and  wine  there  are  the  real  body  and  blood  ' 
of  Christ.    (II.  42(>-44i.)  j 

TREGELiliES,  Samuel  Prideaux  (1813-  i 
1875),  an  eminent  English  Biblical  scholar,  | 
received  his  education  at  the  Falmouth  ' 
C  lassical  School,  Avas  employed  in  iron-  I 
working  (1828-34),  and  l)ecame  in  183.5  a  pri-  ! 
vate  tutor.  From  this  time  he  devoted  him-  [ 
self  to  the  study  of  the  Scriptiires,  and  pub- 
lished many  critical  works  on  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  continuing  his  literary  I 
activity  to  his  death.   His  Greek  Testa- 
ment appeared  between  the  years  IS'u  and  { 
1872.  He  received  LL.D,  from  St.  Andrews 
in  1850,  and  from  1SG3  an  annual  pension  of  ' 
£100.    lie  was  an  active  philanthropist,  and 
Avas  appointed  a  member  of  the  company  on 
the  revision  of  the  Old  Testament. 

TRITHEISM  (Grk.  rpiV,  three,  and 
eco?,  God),  the  doctrine  that  the  three  per- 
sons of  the  Trinity  are  three  distinct  Gods. 
(I.  7i,  147,  14S.)  

TJBiaXJITAIlIANS  (Lat.  ubique, 
everywhere),  a  scliool  of  Lutheran  divines, 
so  called  from  their  tenet  that  tlie  body  of 
Christ  is  present  evei-y where,  and  espe- 
cially in  the  eucharist,  by  virtue  of  his  om- 
nipresence.   (II.  445.) 

UNIGENITURE  (Lat.  nnigenitus, 
only-begotten),  the  state  of  being  the  only- 
l)egotten,  applied  in  theology  to  Christ  as 
the  only-begotten  of  the  Father.  See  J/o- 
■nogcncs.    (I.  171-173.; 

UNITARIANS,  a  comprehensive  term, 
including  all  who  believe  the  Deity  to  sub- 
*-ist  in  one  jjcrson  only.  Tlie  chief  article 
in  the  religious  system  of  the  Unitarians  is 
that  Christ  was  a  mere  man.  "But  they 
consider  him  as  the  great  instrument  in 
the  handsof  God  of  reversing  all  the  eflects 
of  the  fall;  as  the  object  of  all  the  prophe- 
cies from  Closes  to  liis  own  time;  as  the 
great  lx)nd  of  union  to  virtuous  and  good 
men,  who,  as  Christians,  make  one  body  in 
a  peculiar  sense.  The  Socinian  creed  Avas 
re<luced  to  what  Dr.  Priestly  calls  Iluman- 
itarianism,  by  denying  the  miraculous  con- 
ception, the  infallibility,  and  the  imi)ecca- 
bility  of  the  Saviour;  and  consequently. 


his  right  to  any  divine  honors  or  religious 
worship. 

UNIVERSALISTS,  those  who  believe 
that  Christ  so  died  for  all  that,  before  he 
shall  deliver  up  his  mediatorial  kingdom, 
all  fallen  creatures  shaU  be  brought  to  a 
participation  of  the  benefits  of  his  death, 
in  their  restoration  to  holiness  and  l>appi- 
ness;  also  those  Avho  deny  future  punish- 
ments altogether.    (I.  212,  276.) 

XJRIEIi  (Heb.  the  liglit  of  God),  the 
name  of  an  archangel  mentioned  only  in 
the  Apocrypha.    (I.  289-291.) 

VEDA  (Sanskrit  vid,  to  know)  is  the 
general  name  applied  to  those  ancient 
Sanskrit  writings  on  which  the  early  Hin- 
doo religion  was  based.  The  oldest  of 
these  works  is  the  liig-veda;  next  to  it  are 
the  Yajur-veda  and  Sama-veda;  the  lat- 
est is  the  Atharva-veda.    (1.  432-485.) 

VULGATE  (Lat.  vulgatus,  usual,  com- 
mon, from  vulgus,  the  multitude),  the  usu- 
al name  for  the  authoritative  Latin  Bible 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  See  Je- 
rome.  ov,  

WARBURTON,  William  (1098-1779),  a 
theologian  and  prelate  of  the  English 
Church.  After  various  preferments,  he 
became  Dean  of  Bristol  in  1757,  and  Bishop 
of  Gloucester  in  1760.  His  greatest  Avork  is 
the  Divine  Legation  of  Moses,  published 
1738-11.  His  collected  Avorks  were  brought 
out  in  seven  volumes,  quarto,  in  178S,  and 
a  subsequent  edition,  with  a  memoir,  in 
1794.  See  Watson's  i?/eo/  ]Varburton,'[S^i. 
(L  .-34.) 

W^aiTBY,  Daniel  (1638-1726),  an  emi- 
nent English  divine,  Avho  graduated  at 
Trinity  College,  Oxford,  in  1657,  became 
felloAV  in  16C4,  and  was  made  prebendary 
of  Salisbury  in  1638.  He  Avas  a  voluminous 
Avriter,  his  Faraphrase  and  Commentanj 
on  the  Neio  Testament,  so  often  referred  to 
by  Di'.  Summers,  being  regarded  his  best 
work.   Late  in  life  he  became  an  Arian. 

WISEMAN,  Nicholas  Patrick  Stephen, 
(l502-i865;,  cardinal,  and  head  of  the  En- 
glish lioman  Catholic  Church.  He  is  best 
known  among  Protestants  for  his  Lectures 
on  the  Connection  between  Science  and  Re- 
vealed Religion.  In  1849,  on  the  death  of 
Dr.  Walsh,  he  becamo  vicar-apostolic  of 
the  London  District,  and  in  September,  1850, 
Avas  appointed  cardinal  and  Archbishop  of 
Westminster,  a  step  Avhich  raised  an  an- 
gry nCAVspaper  controversy,  and  resulted 
in  the  Ecclesiastical  Titles  bill.  Dr.  AVise- 
mau  is  usually  regarded  as  a  moderate  po- 


52 


Glossary. 


lemic,  a  fine  scholar,  an  elegant  orator,  and 
;in  accomplished  critic.  lie  -was  the  sev- 
o;ith  English  cardinal  since  the  Reforma- 
tion. The  other  six  Avere  Pole,  Allen, 
Howard,  York  (a  son  of  the  Pretender, 
Avho  Avas  never  in  England),  AVcld,  and 
Acton.  Drs.  Manning  and  Newman  have 
bince  been  created  cardinals.    (11.  278-282.) 

"WORSHIP,  llomish  Distinction  of  De- 
grees in.  The  Romish  theologians  and  cas- 
uists distingnished  three  degrees  or  kinds  of 
worship,  Latvia,  Hyperdulia,  and  Dulia: 
the  first  being  snpreme  worship  <lue  to  God 
alone;  the  second  intermediate,  due  alone 
to  the  Virgin;  the  thinl  inferior,  due  to 
baints  and  angels.    (II.  27i.) 

XEROPHAGIA  (Gik.  ^rip6^,  dry,  and 
</)a>o/xa4,  to  eat).  This  term  is  applied  in 
early  writers  to  the  days  on  which  nothing 
was  eaten  but  bread  and  salt.  At  a  later 
period  pulse,  herbs,  and  ivwit  Avere  add- 
ed. This  fast  Avas  not  compulsory  excejit 
among  the  Montanists.  The  Essenes  ob- 
served it,  putting  nothing  into  their  bread 
but  salt  and  hyssop. 

YOUNG,  Edward  (1684-176j),  a  celebrat- 
ed English  poet  and  clergyman,  received 
the  degree  of  B.C.L.  at  Oxford,  in  1714,  and 
of  D.C.L.  in  171D.  In  1731  he  married  Lady 
Elizabeth  Lee,  daughter  of  the  Earl  of 
Lichfield  and  AvidoAV  of  Colonel  Lee.  He 
exhibited  great  grief  at  her  deatli  in  1741, 
and  it  is  believed  that  he  received  the  eug- 


gestiou  of  the  Night  Thoughts  from  his 
solemn  meditations  at  this  time.  This 
Avork,  published  1742-46,  and  in  innumerable 
editions  since,  in  both  England  and  Ameri- 
ca, is  the  one  by  Avhich  he  is  solely  remem- 
bered. In  17G2  he  superintended  an  edition 
of  his  collected  Avorks  in  four  volumes, 
12mo.  

ZUINGLIANS,  folloAvers  of  Ulric 
Zuingle,  or  Zuinglius  (1484-1531),  Avho  Avas 
canon  of  Zurich,  SAvitzerland.  He  began 
the  Reformation  in  1516  by  explaining  the 
Scriptures,  and  inveighing  against  the  su- 
perstitions of  Popery.  In  1519  he  confront- 
ed an  Italian  monk  named  Bernaidine 
Samson,  Avho  Avas  carrying  on  in  Switzer- 
land the  traftic  in  indulgences.  By  his 
great  learning,  zeal,  and  intrepidity  he 
greatly  promoted  the  cause  of  the  Refor- 
mation, and  is  considered  the  founder  of 
the  Reformed  Church.  He  aimed  at  the 
elimination  of  eveiy  vestige  of  error  in  the 
doctrine,  and  of  superstition  in  the  Avor- 
ship,of  the  Church;  and  in  particular  held, 
in  opposition  to  Luther,  that  the  lx>dy  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  only  symbolically  pres- 
ent in  the  Eucharist.  Zuinglius  fell  in 
battle  between  the  Papists  and  Protest- 
ants. After  his  death  his  system  Avas 
modified  by  Calvin,  ])articularly  by  graft- 
ing on  it  the  dogma  of  absolute  predestina- 
tion, and  by  rejecting  the  mere  figurative, 
and  asserting  a  real  though  undefinabh; 
spiritual,  i)iesence  of  tlie  body  and  blooil  of 
Christ  in  tlie  Lord's-supper.    .11.  446-448.) 


Finis. 


